[Sylvia Heal in the Chair]

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You probably saw the news late last night on the report by the National Audit Office, which shows that some clearly fraudulent and other meritless visa applications for people to enter Britain were approved on the instructions of the Home Office against the advice of officials. Have you received any indication that the Home Secretary will come here today to make a statement on that very serious matter? Perhaps more relevantly, have you heard whether the Home Secretary is about to make a personal statement, because many of us think that it is a resigning matter?

Sylvia Heal: I am not aware that the Home Secretary or any other Minister has made a request to come before the House, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's comments will have been noted.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will know that we now have a procedure known as urgent questions, by which an application can be made to Mr. Speaker for a matter to be considered on a particular day. Will you confirm that were this matter to be submitted to Mr. Speaker on Monday, it could still legitimately be regarded as urgent because the Minister in question did not ask to come to the House today?
	We often find ourselves in this odd position. Although there is no reason, as far as I know, why the urgent question procedure should not be used on a Friday—I wish it were used more often because this is, of course, a normal sitting day—surely it would still be appropriate for Mr. Speaker at least to consider an application for an urgent question even if a weekend intervenes and the matter was considered urgent today.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for Mr. Speaker to consider when he receives—if he should—the application.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Christmas Day (Trading) Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Cultural and Non-Christian Exemption

'(1)   Where the owner of a large shop employs entirely non-Christian employees in that shop and lodges notice of such fact with the local authority no later than 1st November in any year, the large shop shall be exempt from the provisions of this act for the Christmas Day following.
	(2)   A notice made under subsection (1) shall be in writing and shall identify—
	(a)   the shop premises concerned,
	(b)   the owner of the shop, and
	(c)   the identity of all the employees.'.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Greg Knight: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 8 [Clause 1], at end insert—
	'(2A)   Subsection(1) does not apply to any shop where there is a local public demand for it to be open on Christmas Day.
	(2B)   A local public demand under subsection (2A) shall be deemed to exist for the Christmas Day following where by 1st November in any year the local authority has received a petition signed by no fewer than 1,000 persons
	(a)   who reside within the local authority area in which the large shop is situated, and
	(b)   whose names appear on the electoral register.'.

Greg Knight: I start from the position of thinking that the Bill is not necessary. I have arrived at that position without encouragement, coercion or inducement from any trade union. However, if others take a different view and think that we should legislate, it is right and proper that we try to accommodate all shades of opinion from all members of our society.
	The new clause recognises that not every resident of England and Wales is a Christian. Indeed, many members of this country do not practise the Christian religion and, indeed, may support another religion for which Christmas day has no religious significance.

Eric Forth: I hope it may help my right hon. Friend, even at this early stage in his analysis, if I remind him of what I told the House on Second Reading, because it relates exactly to his point. I said—I quote myself, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is always a pleasurable thing to do:
	"Among people of working age—the 16 to 74 age group—the Christian element is 72 per cent., but the number of people with no religion, or no stated religion, was 22 per cent. The figure for the other defined religions was 4.1 per cent.—[Official Report, 26 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1169.]
	"Other defined religions" includes Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, others and Buddhists. Does that not set the context for what my right hon. Friend is going to argue? It reinforces his point that we simply must not assume that everyone of working age—this is the key point, as is made clear in the census, from which I quoted—is necessarily of the Christian religion.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but the argument goes wider than that. I come from a relatively small family and have one brother. We received a similar education and obviously come from the same cultural background, yet his attitude to Sundays and Christmas day is totally different from mine. For me, Christmas is the time to stay at home with friends. My brother takes the opposite view. He likes to travel the world and to go shopping. He now lives in Hong Kong, where he can go to the shops on Christmas day. He often visits America, where it is possible to shop in New York on Christmas day. So two brothers from the same cultural upbringing have a totally different view of Christmas. I would argue that many Christians—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a Second Reading debate. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will start to address his new clause.

Greg Knight: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was seeking to explain that it is not just non-Christians who would favour new clause 1. Many people from a Christian background do not believe that Christmas day is a day on which one should stay at home and not be able to visit a shop.
	New clause 1 would exempt from the Bill large shops owned and run by non-Christians with non-Christian employees. I do not know how many right hon. and hon. Members are familiar with the city of Leicester, but I suspect that in view of the forthcoming by-election in Leicester, South many will become far more familiar with it in the coming weeks. I used to live in the city, which has changed dramatically, not always for the better as for many years it had the misfortune of having a Labour-controlled, anti-motorist city council. However, multiculturalism has made Leicester a better city, as members of the Asian community have brought a quality of life that was not present before.
	If hon. Members visit Melton road or Belgrave road in Leicester they would find a number of Asian shops that provide a valuable service, not just to members of the Asian community but to everyone. They include a number of large shops—we are not just talking about small corner shops—that are owned and run by members of the Asian community and trade seven days a week. Why do some Labour Members want to force such shops to close on Christmas day, when the owners and employees are not Christian? What is the argument for forcing the non-Christian owner of a large shop to close his store on Christmas day? People who seek to change the law in that way ought to be prepared to consider reasonable exemptions where there is a good case for them.

Eric Forth: I hope that my right hon. Friend will explain how verification would be achieved. Would people simply declare their religion or would there be an attempt at verification? Is he worried that his new clause contains the seeds of falsification or misrepresentation?

Greg Knight: When one is framing legislation one must always be aware of the fact that some people will seek to cheat or get round legal restrictions. However, new clause 1(2) enables the local authority to carry out random checks to see whether what is purported to be the case is indeed so. I would rather leave that to the local authority, as the owner of a large shop who wants to trade on Christmas day has to submit a notice to it identifying the shop premises, the owner of the shop and the identity of all employees, which should provide it with sufficient evidence when carrying out random checks to see whether information relating to a shop run and staffed by non-Christians is genuine. My right hon. Friend's fears are therefore groundless.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unlikely that such an application would be made without the employees being aware of it? If the notice stated that they were non-Christian but they were in fact Christian, that would soon be drawn to the attention of the local authority.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is quite right. The employees would appreciate the fact that the owner has to list the people in his employ. If he sought to go behind their backs, they, or any member of their family, could draw the error to the attention of the local authority.

Win Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, unfortunately, new clause 1(2) provides opportunities that unscrupulous employers of whatever faith have pursued throughout the ages? His proposal is quite unnecessary. We ought to get on and discuss the substance of the Bill, and see it safely through the House.

Greg Knight: I do not agree. The new clause is necessary, and I do not share the hon. Gentleman's depressing view of employers. If the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), thinks that more checks and greater protection against fraud are needed, I am sure that that could be discussed after our debate and perhaps corrected in the other place, if the Bill proceeds that far. I do not accept, however, that any further amendment is necessary.

Kevan Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his proposal would impose great burdens on shop owners? How would they verify what someone's religion is or is not?

Greg Knight: That is quite simple. If a shop owner decides towards the end of the summer that he would like to trade on Christmas day, he can call a staff meeting to say that he is thinking of submitting a notice seeking permission to trade, but can only do so if none of his employees is a practising Christian. It would therefore not be difficult for him to seek their views and take soundings.

Eric Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the intemperate remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) ignore the fact that the great lacuna in the Bill is the complete lack of protection for employees? If protection in the Sunday Trading Act 1994 had been reproduced in the Bill, my right hon. Friend's new clause would not be necessary at all. He is trying to do something that I failed to do in an amendment that was not selected—he wants to go further than Labour Members and, indeed, the trade union sponsoring the Bill and provide greater protection for a minority of employees.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The question of protection for employees is separate from the argument about whether a shop should be allowed to open. If Labour Members are concerned that a small number of unscrupulous employers would use the new clause to force employees to work so that they can open their shop on Christmas day, they should address that in other ways, as protection for workers is an entirely separate issue. One or two hon. Members have argued that employers would be crafty and deny promotion to someone who has said that they do not want to work on Sundays or Christmas day, but there are ways of dealing with that problem. We could make employers hold a promotion register, in which they would have to say whether, from day one of someone's employment, they are likely to be promoted. If someone is getting 10 out of 10 in the book but is not winning promotion, we could prove that there was discrimination.

Helen Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he is going down a road where prying into someone's religion becomes the norm? Surely, no employer has the right to question his employees about whether they have any religious belief. If they kept the promotion register that he suggested, that would make the Bill even more intrusive, as someone's religion would be linked to their employment prospects.

Greg Knight: If we were dealing with a matter that had nothing whatever to do with religion, the hon. Lady's point might be valid, but we are talking about Christmas day. If we were discussing a Diwali celebrations Bill seeking to impose some restrictions in that regard, religion would be an issue. The fact that we are talking about Christmas day, one of the most sacred days in the calendar for Christians, means that religion is relevant. Labour Members cannot brush religion aside when we are speaking about Christmas day. To some people Christmas day means nothing, and why should it if they are not Christian? The new clause says that a shop that is owned and staffed by people who are not Christian and to whom Christmas day does not mean anything should not be forced to close.
	Most of us who have been to our inner cities where there is a large Asian community have nothing but admiration for the number of Asian businessmen who have started with nothing and built up very successful businesses. Why should the state say to someone who owns a large shop and who is an Asian, "You can't open because most people in this country are Christians and we are telling you you've got to close on Christmas day"? That is unfair. The sole purpose of new clause 1 is to prevent that.

Ann Coffey: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the notion of national holidays? I am not a Christian, but I see Christmas day as a national holiday. Does he accept that if a day is seen as a national holiday, everybody who works should have the benefit of it? As he is aware, Easter day is exempt. Does he propose to take the same view of Easter day as he does of Christmas day?

Greg Knight: I would be brought to heel by the Chair if I exceeded the scope of the Bill. We are talking about Christmas day, not Easter. No, I do not accept that everybody should automatically have a right to a day off on a national holiday. That has never happened. Many people work on national holidays: news readers, paper shops and people in the media. There will always be exemptions. I ask Labour Members, what is wrong with that? Those who are seeking to bring about the change need to show why it should impinge on every culture in the United Kingdom.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is apparent from the interventions that he has taken, that there is a Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers agenda to give shop workers more days off, and it is being proposed on the basis that it is justified on Christian—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that we are no longer on Second Reading. Perhaps Members will address their comments to the new clause and the amendment under discussion.

Greg Knight: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is not right in his assumption. I trust that anyone who speaks in the debate and who has an interest to declare and who may be sponsored by a union will declare it.
	Amendment No. 11 recognises the fact that there may be a view in a local community that runs contrary to the views expressed from the Labour Benches. If that is the case, surely that view should be reflected in a provision for a local community to opt out. The amendment states that the Bill will not apply
	"where there is a local public demand"
	for a large shop to open on Christmas day, and a local public demand
	"shall be deemed to exist for the Christmas Day following where by 1st November in any year the local authority has received a petition signed by no fewer than 1,000 persons
	(a) who reside within the local authority area in which the large shop is situated".
	In case Labour Members ask, "What about fraud?" in this case, paragraph (b) of amendment No. 11 provides that those who sign the petition must be persons
	"whose names appear on the electoral register"
	so I hope that will allay any fears that amendment No. 11 could be open to abuse.
	Both new clause 1 and amendment No. 11 are reasonable and fair. They are designed to exempt from the Bill those shops where the view of the owner is that the shop should be exempt, but that is limited to the grounds specified in the new clause and the amendment. It would not be a case of an owner deciding of his own volition that he wanted to trade on Christmas day. If new clause 1 were accepted by the House, he would need to show that his employees are not members of the Christian faith.
	I am thinking primarily of the large Asian supermarkets, of which we have very many in the United Kingdom. Most of them, in my experience, provide an excellent service. The owners do not regard themselves as bound by our traditional holidays. They do not, by and large, support the Christian religion, so why should they be covered by the Bill?
	I should be interested to know why the promoter of the Bill feels that none of the provisions that he tells us are necessary should apply to Scotland, where I understand there are no rules to prevent a shop, Asian or otherwise, from opening on Christmas day. I hope that on sober reflection hon. Members will consider it appropriate to add new clause 1 and amendment No. 11 to the Bill.

Russell Brown: I have some information for the right hon. Gentleman. A similar Bill is going through the Scottish Parliament to cover Scotland.

Greg Knight: I am grateful for that information. I hope people are as tolerant in Scotland as I am seeking to make the Bill.
	On amendment No. 11, if a large shop were surrounded by a God-fearing devout Christian society, it would be right and proper that it did not open on Christmas day, but if the shop were providing a valuable service in an area of mainly secular agnostic people who wanted it to open, and if the owner wanted to open and could get 1,000 people from that area to sign a petition, why should he not be allowed to do so?

Eric Forth: Would my right hon. Friend comment on what might happen if there were a counter-petition by a similar or greater number of people of a different faith? We could get into competitive petitions, and I would be intrigued to know what might happen then.

Greg Knight: If people were alarmed that a shop had received the requisite number of signatures on a petition, I would say to them, "Don't go shopping". Shops exist to cater for those who wish to use them. If more than 1,000 in a locality want to use a shop on Christmas day or feel that it provides a useful service on Christmas day and they have signed the petition, the shop should be allowed to open. If other people, perhaps fewer or more, do not give a hoot whether the shop is open, they are free to stay at home.

Helen Jones: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's argument fall down? The figure in his amendment bears no relation to population density, so the situation could arise where 1,000 people want a shop to open, but the vast majority of people living in that local authority area do not. Are their wishes to be overridden by the 1,000 people?

Greg Knight: Yes, and rightly so. I make no apology for that. Shops exist to serve those who wish to use them. I am one of a minority of people in this country, I think, who have no interest whatever in football. I have not watched any of the games that are being played at present, but I would staunchly defend the right of others to do so. If I see a sign outside a public house saying, "Large-screen TV—come and watch Euro-football here", I avoid it, but I would not for a moment seek to stop those premises showing that football match to those who want to watch it. Similarly, if a shop can show that 1,000 people in the locality want the right to use its services on Christmas day, it should be allowed to open.
	I wonder how many customers need to cross the threshold of a large shop to make it viable on a normal trading day—far less than 1,000, I assume. The answer is probably 100 or 150 people, assuming that they make a moderate number of purchases, so if a shop can show that 1,000 people wish it to be open and provide a service on Christmas day, it should be allowed to do so. If other people do not mind one way or the other, or would prefer the shop not to open, why should they prevent others who wish to use its services from doing so?

Kevin Hughes: I am intrigued about the administration, red tape and bureaucracy that would be needed to administer or police the proposals. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman was against more red tape and bureaucracy. Can he imagine handing such a job to a local authority? It would need to appoint an officer; that is the starter for five. He or she would probably need a supervisor, and it would not be long before a whole department was needed. Will he share with the House his proposals to deal with that red tape and bureaucracy?

Greg Knight: I know how Labour Members love red tape and bureaucracy, so if the hon. Gentleman thinks that that would be the effect, I would have thought that he would welcome these proposals—but I do not think that either proposal would take much policing. It is for each local authority to determine the surveillance that would need to be carried out. We have all heard of random checks, which are all that a local authority would need to do. Let us suppose that an authority received two petitions, each signed by 1,000 people. All that it would have to do is carry out random checks on the names on the petition to see whether they matched the electoral register. If they did not, the local authority could inform the shop owner that his petition was defective, and he was not exempt from the Act.
	Similarly, if the local authority received an application from an Asian superstore, but on closer examination it turned out not to be an Asian superstore—perhaps the manager was an Asian person, but it was a normal local shop, not run by non-Christians—the local authority could determine that the provisions of new clause 1 were not met. A great bureaucracy would not be needed to administer the proposals. That may disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but both new clause 1 and amendment No. 11 are reasonable. They would restrict the scope of the Bill, so that it would not affect communities for whom Christmas day is not a special event. I should have thought that Labour Members would therefore welcome the new clause and the amendment.

Ann Coffey: If 1,000 names were on a petition to keep a shop open, but the shop staff consisted of devout Christians, what resolution would the right hon. Gentleman propose?

Greg Knight: I cannot think of many shops that would have 1,000 employees. That would be a very large shop indeed. Perhaps the hon. Lady can give an example of a shop with 1,000 employees.

Ann Coffey: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands my question. He is talking about making an exemption where a local petition has 1,000 names, and I am asking how he would resolve a situation when a 1,000-name petition is received to keep a shop open, yet most of its employees are devout Christians who want that day off. How would he balance those interests?

Greg Knight: We are returning to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made about worker protection if an employee does not wish to work on Christmas day. That is a totally separate argument in relation to whether the shop should be allowed to open. I would not tackle that by telling the shop owner that he cannot trade on Christmas day. That is the wrong way to deal with the situation.
	Hon. Members may feel that these proposals might be unfair to members of a community who do not want a shop to open, but they should sit in the public gallery of a magistrates court dealing with licensing issues. Very often, when licensing justices are asked to renew a justices licence for a public house, petitions will be submitted to object to renewing that licence, perhaps because entertainment is put on there and noise is created. However, the very fact that someone in the community raises an objection does not automatically prevent that business from trading. Of course, if there is a demand for a large shop to open, people will say that they would rather it remained closed—particularly, perhaps, those who live next door—but, in a free society, if there is a demand for a shop to open and the owner wants to open, he should be allowed to do so.
	Those hon. Members who were in the House when we first decided to tackle Sunday trading will be well aware of what we were told would happen if we opened up Sundays to allow trading. We were told that Sunday would be totally different. We would never again be able to enjoy Sunday as we knew it. Many of us received petitions signed by hundreds of people from the Churches. The Churches particularly—now it is the unions—told us that we should not tamper with the Shops Act 1950 and allow trading on Sunday, as it would destroy families: people would be forced to work, and Sunday would never be the same again. That has not happened. If we were now to seek to turn back the clock and reintroduce the Shops Act 1950, I would bet Labour Members that they would receive petitions by the hundred saying "Leave our Sunday alone" and "Hands off Sunday." The amendment to the Sunday trading law has generally worked well—it has satisfied public demand—and that is all I seek to do with the new clause and the amendment.

Eric Forth: Did my right hon. Friend think it odd then, and does he still think it odd now, that in the United States, where Sunday trading is widely practised, church attendance has always been multiples of what it is in this country? More than 40 per cent. of Americans go to church on Sundays, despite shopping before and after, whereas regular church attendance is less than 10 per cent. in this country.

Greg Knight: I hesitate to go too far down that path, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my right hon. Friend has a point, in that these days many people do more than one thing on Sundays. It is apparent from the American experience that some people go to church and then to the shops, or to the shops and then to church. They do not regard the two as incompatible. Only the trade union involved in this case feels that we should prevent people from shopping in large shops on Christmas day. I do not know why the union takes that view. If it wants to address workers' rights, it should do so totally differently. If there is a demand for large shops to open on Christmas day they should be allowed to do so, according to my proposals.

Kevan Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that USDAW and other trade unions support the Bill, but it has also received strong support from others. I have letters from local Church groups, and both the established Church and the Catholic Church back the Bill as well.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Of course, the same range of people told us that we should not get rid of the Shops Act 1950. Those of us who were in government at that time—it was before the 1987 election—went against the advice of all those people. We were told that we would lose support as a party. I have no evidence that people changed their voting patterns because we sought to address the problems of the Shops Act.

Ann Coffey: For the record, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that USDAW supported the changes to Sunday trading.

Greg Knight: Churches have been mentioned. The Catholic Church and others did not support the changes. I did not know that the union supported the changes and I am delighted to hear that, but the Churches opposed them.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Churches' attitude might have been slightly different if they had realised that the USDAW spokesman had said:
	"This has nothing to do with religion other than our belief that workers deserve the day off"?

Greg Knight: I shall not interfere between USDAW and the Churches. I hope that hon. Members, whatever their party and whether or not they are members of a trade union, will consider the matter fairly, calmly and on its merits. There is an overwhelming case for providing that when a shop owner and the employees are not Christian, they should be exempt from the Bill. New clause 1 tries to achieve that, and I hope that hon. Members will view that as a reasonable position. The House should approve it.

Brian Jenkins: I have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman with growing concern. He implies that a non-Christian shop owner—I can think of a rather large store in London that has a non-Christian owner—should ensure that all his staff are non-Christian, and could thus seek an advantage over a competitor. Is not there an incentive in the new clause for the employer to ensure that all his staff are non-Christian? Imagine the discord that that would cause in stores throughout the country. In a multicultural country, where we are trying to engage with each other, I can envisage no more divisive path than creating shops that are almost ghettoes, with non-Christians in one and Christians in another.

Greg Knight: The idea that a shop owner will start sacking people and employing non-Christians merely to gain benefit from one trading day a year is incredible. I do not believe that that will happen, especially when some shops might not want to open on Christmas day. However, if they want to open on Christmas day, they should have the right to do that, and be exempt from the legislation.
	I believe that hon. Members who feel that the measure is necessary will be prepared to accommodate the views of large shop owners who take a different view and whose staff may take a different view. I therefore hope that new clause 1 and amendment No. 11 will commend themselves to the House.

Malcolm Bruce: I shall not detain the House long. I make it clear that, as a Scottish Member, I shall not vote on the Bill, but I have a genuinely held view on its substance. My personal position is that I support the Conservative arguments for extending Sunday trading rules to Christmas, rather than the Bill. I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is one of the measure's sponsors. I respect his views, but we do not share the same opinion on the matter.
	However, I am worried about the seriousness of the new clause. Most of the interventions have shown that it is not practical, as drafted. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) has two objectives. The first is to extend the debate and the second is to defend not the new clause but the more substantive argument that people should have the freedom to choose what they do on Christmas day rather than having it restricted. I am sure that he acknowledges privately, if not publicly, that trying to isolate a store as non-Christian, requiring a register for a licence and identification of every employee is not a serious practical legislative proposition that any of us would regard as workable. [Interruption.] I do not want to be accused of delaying the Bill's passage, but Labour Members who supported the Bill intervened often. I am surprised at that, in the context of parliamentary procedure.
	I understand what prompted the Bill. First, there is a fear that Christmas day is somehow being lost as a special day. However, the same argument applied to Sunday trading, and I agree with the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire about that. Secondly, there is a worry that pressure will be exerted on individuals to give up their Christmas days. If people do not wish to work on Christmas day for specifically religious reasons, they should be given a legal right not to do that, as applies on Sundays.
	I believe that the Bill will generate some negative reactions, because it is trying to reverse a process that is already happening. People choose to shop on Christmas day, and some shops are open. Although many people do not want to work on Christmas day—I am one of them; I want to be at home with my family—I know of people who loathe and detest Christmas day. They want to be out and about with other people, and would prefer to work. The Bill would deny them that right. The extent of the freedom of choice is at the heart of the question of whether we need the Bill.

Kevan Jones: The law as it stands restricts the activities of large shops if Christmas day falls on a Sunday. If it falls on another day, they can open. The Bill is simply trying to close a loophole. Many hon. Members who spoke on Second Reading believed that the Bill would achieve that. There is not a free-for-all on Christmas day.

Malcolm Bruce: I bring the benefit of being a Scottish Member to the debate: the law on Sunday trading and Christmas trading is different in Scotland. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) knows that we did not have restrictive laws in Scotland, basically because people believed that the power of Calvinism would simply prevent such things from happening. As society has changed, the lack of a law has opened up opportunities. Shops are not as restricted in Scotland as they are in England. As someone who sometimes spends a Sunday in London but more often spends it in Scotland, I can say that the difference is marked. People in Scotland who like the current position would not like it if a Bill in the Scottish Parliament extended Sunday trading laws to Scotland on Christmas day.

Eric Forth: I intervene as a non-Calvinist who was born and raised in Scotland, and who therefore appreciates the hon. Gentleman's comments. We shall all watch with interest the Liberal Democrats' actions in the Scottish Parliament when such a Bill comes before them.
	However, we have to acknowledge the profound cultural difference between Scotland and England. When I was raised in Scotland, Christmas day was barely a public holiday, and that continues to inform many people's attitudes. However, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that the attitude in England is culturally different. Drawing comparisons between England and Scotland on the subject is not helpful.

Malcolm Bruce: I made it clear at the outset that, as a Scottish Member, I would not vote on the Bill unless amendment No. 12 to extend the measure to Scotland were accepted. It is up to the Scottish Parliament to decide. The Liberal Democrats regard the matter as an entirely personal issue—a matter of religion and conscience—and there will be a free vote on it. Although I am the trade and industry spokesman for my party, I am expressing my personal opinion, which is not a party view.
	I accept the chastisement of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I do not wish to impose any views or judgments on England. However, I believe that I am qualified to know the difference between England and Scotland, given that I was brought up in England, represent a Scottish constituency and married a wife from London. I therefore believe that I know both communities well.
	The serious point that I am making is that the climate has changed, and is changing. At the heart of this debate is the question of whether we need a law to try to protect Christmas day from a change that a significant minority of the population have actively been bringing about. My view is that we need to be careful not to impose restrictions that will be hard to sustain, because I suspect that the number of people who want the choice to make Christmas day different from what most people choose is growing, albeit slowly.
	That is all that I want to say. The new clause is an unworkable proposition, and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire would be wise to withdraw it. He has explored and identified a problem, but I do not think that he has found the solution.

Eric Forth: It pains me to say this, but I really was not convinced by the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). I say that as someone who—the House has rarely heard me say this, but I shall say it on this occasion—has changed his mind on the Bill in a general sense. We shall return to that on Third Reading, when I hope to explain my position in much more depth and detail.
	I make that point at this stage, however, because I began by having some sympathy for my right hon. Friend's new clause and amendment, and wanting to support them. I think that it takes us into a more general consideration of multiculturalism and monoculturalism. As I have said before and will say again, I am basically a monoculturalist. I believe that people who come to this country freely from elsewhere should be prepared to adapt to our culture and history, although not necessarily to our religion. I certainly would not want to say that, but I am uneasy when we go too far in encouraging differences in our society rather than integration. That is my starting point.
	I therefore come to the new clause and amendment with some trepidation, although I can see exactly what my right hon. Friend wants to say. The libertarian in me wants to reflect what the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) just said. In an ideal world, I would want everyone to be as free as possible to do what they wanted to do of their own free will. I apply that argument to all sorts of subjects, and I suspect that we shall come to that when we debate smoking and other matters. However, that argument is overlaid by the profound cultural considerations that arise in discussion of the matter before us today. The very title of the new clause, "Cultural and non-Christian exemption", goes to the very heart of that. We must all examine our conscience and ask ourselves how far we want to go to use the law—which is what we are talking about here—either to impose uniformity on society or to acknowledge as far as possible the reasonable diversity in society. The new clause forces us to confront such issues right from the start, although I find myself torn in this case, because part of me wants the maximum freedom for people to do as they wish, even on Christmas day. I shall return to that on Third Reading, for which, unusually for me, I have done some preparation. I am not a great man for preparation, but on this occasion I have a little to hand.
	When I heard the argument that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire made, the first thing that occurred to me was that, given the new clause's thrust, it is unnecessarily restrictive where it says:
	"Where the owner of a large shop employs entirely non-Christian employees in that shop".
	I wonder why it does not say "largely" or "substantially" instead. As the new clause stands, the presence of one Christian employee in a fairly large shop would stymie or prevent the implementation of my right hon. Friend's argument. That is somewhat anomalous, and although I can see the rationale behind his use of "entirely", it goes a long way towards undermining the whole point of what he is trying to do.
	On the entirely practical question of the verification of religion, the question has rightly been raised of how we could balance reasonable privacy on a very personal matter—religion—against the reasonable verification that the new clause asks for. We get into some difficulty there. It is all very well for my right hon. Friend to say that a notice shall be made in writing and shall identify the premises—that is fairly straightforward. The issue of the owner of the shop is also probably fairly straightforward, although it might not necessarily be in some cases. For example, I wonder how the new clause would cope with cases of corporate, as opposed to personal, ownership. Where the owner of a shop that employed entirely non-Christian employees was a corporation rather than an individual, there might be a complication.
	Subsection (2)(c) refers to
	"the identity of all the employees".
	The issue of identity might not provide a great difficulty—that should be known for all sorts of purposes, not least taxation and other matters—but the declaration of the employees' religion might bring considerable potential difficulties. How would we police and verify the religion of the employees to ensure that they were entirely non-Christian? That brings us, inevitably, to an intrusion into a private matter.
	Of course, it could be argued that where we are discussing the cultural matters involved here, and their importance, we have to confront the fact that if we start asking people whether they want Christmas day to be sacrosanct, which is by definition a matter of religion, we inevitably get into declarations or verifications or religion. However, on what basis that would take place is another matter. Is it simply a question of a declaration of faith, or would one require some sort of demonstration of that? I am not a churchgoer myself, except for on one day a year, Remembrance day, and I do not want to intrude unduly into Church matters, but I am aware that some faiths, Churches and religions require a certain degree of demonstration of adherence to the faith before they will go ahead with ceremonies such as baptism or marriage.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend not recognise that even the census requires people to state whether they are Christian, or what their religion is?

Eric Forth: I am not sure to what extent that is a requirement, and even there I am not sure what verification procedure exists. My hon. Friend almost makes, or emphasises, my point. As I recall it, the census invites people to declare their religious affiliation, but goes no further. I am not sure, therefore, that that is a terribly good example.
	I foresee all sorts of real difficulties with the new clause. Although it pains me slightly, I have to say to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire that the point that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) made about red tape and bureaucracy was fair. Conservative Members need always to be aware—I have taken some of my hon. Friends to task about this before, usually, but not always, on Fridays—that, preaching as we do the virtues of deregulation and the evils of red tape, we need to exercise much care before we come to the House with measures that would impose additional bureaucracy. On the face of it, new clause 1 would do just that. It would require a procedure for notices to be made in writing and, presumably, lodged with the local authority; and my right hon. Friend also said, under pressure from questioning, that there would have to be a random inspection or verification process. It follows that those processes would have to be undertaken by local authority employees. That might be an excellent job creation scheme, or could even be part of the new deal for all I know, but it is not exactly the sort of scheme to which Conservative Members normally give ready support.

Greg Knight: My right hon. Friend is now trying to have it both ways. Does he not accept that I would prefer not to have this legislation? However, I was trying to say that if we must have it, the legislation would be better with the new clause and amendment No. 11.

Eric Forth: I half accept what my right hon. Friend says, as we established on Second Reading, as is explicit in the Bill, that there will have to be some sort of additional proceeding for policing the basic provisions of the Bill, to say nothing of his new clause. He may therefore be able to subsume his red tape into the red tape that would exist under the basic provisions of the Bill. I will go that far, and perhaps accept his helpful intervention.

Mark Francois: On the point about red tape, there are data protection implications relating to the policing, as it were, of new clause 1, as religion is in the category of sensitive personal data as defined under the Data Protection Act 1998. It is the type of information about which those holding it must be particularly careful. Therefore, an employer who was seeking to record it for the purposes of implementing new clause 1 would need to register as a holder of sensitive personal data with the Information Commissioner. There is a cost associated with that, and the policing of it becomes more complicated. I hope that that assists my right hon. Friend in his argument.

Eric Forth: Sad to say, it assists me in my argument but it does not assist our right hon. Friend—I am not sure whether he realised that there was this new bureaucratic horror, which has just intruded into our proceedings thanks to my hon. Friend. We can perhaps revisit in a moment the whole process that was outlined in new clause 1, as I was about to move away from it before my hon. Friend helped me. Perhaps we must now consider it again in terms of the notifications that must be made and the personal data contained in those notifications.
	I am anxious to move on to amendment No. 11, which, if anything, is even more defective, if I may say so, than new clause 1. I can see what my right hon. Friend was aiming at, but I am not sure that his amendment goes anywhere near succeeding in it. Some of the questions that arose during his explanation were relevant. First, on the face of it, local public demand is an attractive phrase, to which most of us would subscribe in most circumstances, but how we identify that is a difficulty. The mechanism by which we identify it must be examined carefully.
	When considering a local authority area, my right hon. Friend gave a hint that he had in mind a densely populated, relatively well-defined area such as Leicester—that is probably where his thinking started. Many local authority areas, not least in Scotland but also in England, are very large and disparate and a number of different communities will reside in them. One can therefore have a homogeneous, densely packed, highly occupied area of an urban local authority on the one hand, as opposed to a large, disparate local authority area on the other. The definition or the basis in terms of local authority areas would not therefore stand too much scrutiny.

Colin Pickthall: I agree absolutely with the right hon. Gentleman. Does he also agree that in many areas such as mine, the large stores that we are talking about—out-of-town-type stores—are right on the edge of a local authority, with almost their entire custom coming from the next-door local authority? Were this nonsense proposal to get anywhere, we would have a situation in which a local authority was dealing with an issue that affected people who did not belong to that local authority.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He anticipated what I was going to say, but he puts it well. A real problem with my right hon. Friend's amendment is that in seeking to base the demand on a local authority area, we bump up against the problem, which occurs so often, of proximity to the boundary and cross-boundary activity. That is illustrated graphically by the Greenwich judgment in relation to local authorities and schools, on which I do not want to digress, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an analogous case, however.

Greg Knight: Does any of this matter in relation to my right hon. Friend's argument? Surely, if a large shop is popular and people want it to open on Christmas day, some of the customers may come from far afield, but at least it will have a customer base within the local authority area, and if 1,000 people want the shop to open, why should it not?

Eric Forth: I will come to the issue of 1,000 people in a moment. We have not got to that yet—we are still talking about local authorities. My right hon. Friend has made a brave attempt to define local public demand, but we have already arrived at a real problem in relation to what that local public demand is and how we measure it. I am simply saying that rather than taking a defined area, my preferred approach would have been to take a five or 10-mile radius around the shop in question. That might have made a lot more sense—perhaps not administratively but in terms of identifying local demand. I therefore query the use of the local authority area as a criterion on which to measure demand.

Christopher Chope: Does not my right hon. Friend's argument ignore the fact that the impact on the local community of a shop opening is likely to be in that very local authority area?

Eric Forth: No, I am arguing the opposite. The impact will be within a prescribed area in relation to the store, regardless of the local authority. Some local authority areas—with which I am not very familiar as I have the pleasure of representing a suburban residential area in London, which is not large—are very large. Such areas, which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends represent, can be 50 to 60 miles from one end to the other. Therefore, the point about local authority demand and local authorities falls down immediately if we are talking about the potential impact on a community of a shop or store opening. I now wish that I had tabled an amendment to my right hon. Friend's amendment to change the definition from "local authority" to "prescribed area around the store". That opportunity, however, has gone.
	The issue of 1,000 people signing a petition also raises some difficulty. Of course, one can pick any arbitrary number. I think that 1,000 is a low number on which to base such a proposal, and had I considered this matter, I would have picked a higher number. We could have the difficulty of competing petitions. Were 1,000 people, or even 5,000 people, to petition in the way that my right hon. Friend has suggested, it is likely that people of a legitimately different point of view might want to table an opposite petition. His amendment does not seem to provide for that. Would it not be embarrassing, to say the least, if 1,000 people petitioned in one direction and 5,000 people petitioned in the other? One wonders what the outcome would be. Perhaps it would have been better to provide for a more competitive or comparative process, whereby people could indicate their level of wish or demand one way or the other, rather than having a one-way mechanism. In some ways, it seems profoundly undemocratic that a small number of people can dictate to a community what will or will not happen in that area.

Greg Knight: Why should anyone who does not want to use a shop have the right to stop it opening? The whole purpose of the amendment is to accommodate those who do want the shop to open. I thought that my right hon. Friend was a libertarian.

Eric Forth: I try to be a libertarian whenever I can, but as I said at the outset—and this will be the thrust of my analysis on Third Reading, although I suspect that that is some way off—there is a competing pressure here, and a competing demand.
	I would have much more sympathy with my right hon. Friend's amendment were it more appropriately drafted. First, I do not think that, in this instance, specifying the local authority area is a good idea. Secondly, I am not convinced that a petition from 1,000 people is a sufficient basis on which to make the move towards liberty that my right hon. Friend seeks. Thirdly, I see a lacuna in that there is no provision for the counter-view to be measured or assessed. For all those reasons, I think the amendment is defective.
	That is not to say that, in an ideal world, we should not allow for more local discretion and decision making. Perhaps we have all missed a trick—I plead guilty to this myself—in not taking the opportunity presented by the Bill to revisit the philosophy behind the Sunday Trading Act 1994 and, indeed, what preceded it. We shall have a chance to do that when we deal with the next group of amendments.
	My right hon. Friend may be on to something really important. Sadly I consider his amendment defective, but perhaps we should have allowed much more scope for that local discretion and decision making rather than imposing a blanket national provision. My right hon. Friend has, after all, put his finger on the fact that local communities vary enormously in their composition, in their ethnicity and, in some cases, in their religious affiliation. We can readily identify many local communities with particular characteristics and meriting different treatment, in terms of shops opening on Christmas day among other things. Perhaps we shall be able to discuss the issue some other day, or in the context of another private Member's Bill. We should never regard what has been done once as being set for ever. Indeed, we may have a chance to explore these matters later today.
	All in all, I am not unsympathetic to the thrust of what my right hon. Friend is trying to do, but having looked in some detail at the way in which his new clause and amendment would operate, I am afraid I cannot support them at this stage, and I would need a lot more convincing before I could. I hope he may yet be able to persuade me, but thus far he has not been able to do so.

Christopher Chope: I am rather disappointed by the illiberal approach of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), which contrasted with the classic liberal approach adopted by the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce).
	Like most Members, I consider Christmas day to be the second most important festival in the Christian calendar, and think that we should do everything possible to preserve its significance. I have to recognise, however, that an increasing number of people in the country are not Christians and do not profess to be, and that many positively adhere to other religions. In those circumstances, I think we need to preach the virtues of tolerance, understanding, freedom and choice.
	That, indeed, is what the Bishop of Winchester did when he preached at evensong in Christchurch priory in my constituency on Trinity Sunday this year. He spoke of the significance in the Christian calendar of that day, which—for those less familiar with the dates in the calendar—happened this year to coincide with the 60th anniversary of D-day. He pointed out that the Winchester diocese contained two large non-Christian communities—a large Muslim community in Southampton and a significant Jewish community in Bournemouth. He might have added, although he did not, that there is also a significant community of Sikhs and Hindus in Southampton, as I know from the time when I represented Southampton, Itchen.
	New clause 1 reflects the reality that parts of our country now contain large non-Christian settlements. If the Bill is designed to keep Christmas day special for Christians, where does it leave those who are not Christian? In Scotland, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has an agenda to make new year's day a special day on which shop workers would not have to work, perhaps because people in Scotland regard new year's day as almost a bigger religious festival than Christmas day. What is certain, however, is that new year's day is not a Christian festival. I do not believe that the campaign by those promoting the Bill is motivated by a concern for Christianity; I think they are concerned about shop workers working on public holidays, and if that is their agenda I think they should be open and clear about it.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) acknowledges that agenda in his new clause, which I was happy to support. He says we should recognise that Christmas day is a Christian festival, and that those who are not Christians and do not want to join in should not be compelled to do so. The issue is voluntarism versus compulsion. My right hon. Friend says that all employees would have to be non-Christian before his new clause could be triggered and the shop could be opened. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst feels that that is going slightly too far, but I think my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire should be praised for saying that we need to ensure that every Christian who might be forced to work in a large shop should be protected. If only one Christian were working in the shop the new clause would not apply, but if there were no Christians and the owner wanted to open the shop, why should he not be able to do so?

Chris Bryant: As one who was only too happy to work on Christmas day, and for that matter on Boxing day and St. Stephen's day and every Sunday as well—in fact, that was the only day of the week on which I was prepared to work—may I suggest that that is not the point at all? What the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) aims to bring about through what we all realise is a parliamentary device is one of the most illiberal, sectarian and divisive provisions that has featured on an amendment paper for many a long month.

Christopher Chope: I am amazed by what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not understand the riddles in which he speaks. I know that many preachers go into the pulpit and try to attract the congregation's attention by speaking in riddles, and the first part of his intervention came into that category. As for the second part, the new clause is the reverse of illiberal and sectarian. It recognises the reality established by the last census. We learn from the census that 26 per cent. of Leicester's population are Indian—the highest percentage in any UK local authority—and 36.1 per cent. are non-white. In Newham, 60.6 per cent. of the population are non-white: in other words, the majority of the population. In Brent, 54.7 per cent. are non-white.

Eric Forth: Those figures might be very interesting—they might even be slightly instructive—but is not my hon. Friend illustrating my point: that what happens in a local authority may not have much relevance to the community within which the store to which the new clause refers is situated? Surely there is a material difference, even in the cases that my hon. Friend quotes, between the local authority at large and the community immediately surrounding a shop that may, under these terms, open on Christmas day.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend's argument is directed more towards amendment No. 11 than new clause 1. In an area such as Newham or Leicester, it is quite likely that there would be a large shop whose owner wished to open on Christmas day, and all of whose employees were non-Christian. That is the point that I am making, particularly in relation to communities in which more than half the population are non-Christian.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the new clause were adopted, in what is a Christian country, we would be discriminating against Christians? If a devout Christian who did not want to work on Christmas day, and who recognised the Christmas holiday, applied for a job in a store employing only non-Christians, there would be an incentive for the store owner not to employ that person because, under the new clause, if they were employed, the shop would not be allowed to open on Christmas day.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman makes that point on the supposition that a responsible store owner would seek to discriminate against a potential employee on the grounds of that person's religious beliefs. I do not think that that is the way in which responsible shop owners would behave.

Kevan Jones: Yes, but the fact of the matter is that, under new clause 1, if that person were the only Christian employed by that store, it would not be allowed to open. Is it right that, in a predominantly Christian country, we should introduce legislation that discriminates against Christians?

Christopher Chope: As of 1 November in any given year, there would be a test. If no Christians were employed at that time, the test would apply for the following Christmas day. If, in the period between then and the following November, the store recruited Christians—or, perhaps more likely, existing employees changed from another religion or from being non-believers and adopted the Christian religion—the situation would alter.
	New clause 1 and amendment No. 11 are being discussed together because there are two mechanisms that would enable exemptions to be made to the rather authoritarian approach that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) proposes. It is surprising that the practising Christian Members of the House, who are trying to preach tolerance and understanding through the new clause, are being strongly opposed by those who make it clear that they do not have Christian beliefs.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman should be careful to judge not, lest he be judged. He said that 60 per cent. of people in Newham were non-white, but the fact that someone is non-white does not mean that he or she is non-Christian. Indeed, one of the most active Christian communities in the United Kingdom is the Afro-Caribbean community, and I think that its members would take significant exception to the nonsense that the hon. Gentleman is preaching this morning.

Christopher Chope: I agree with the hon. Gentleman absolutely. I am certainly not equating being non-white with being non-Christian. If we look around the world today, we see that some of the worst atrocities being committed against Christians are against black and other non-white Christians. I accept that wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, the Library brief does not give details of the non-Christian population by community; all that I have are the details of the non-white population.
	I do, however, have the overall figures for population by religion, which show that only 71.6 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom said in the 2001 census that they were Christians. Only 2.7 per cent. said that they were Muslim, 1 per cent. Hindu, 0.6 per cent. Sikh, 0.5 per cent. Jewish and 0.3 per cent. Buddhist. It would be erroneous to lump the Muslim, Hindu and Sikh populations together and say that they are non-white. I am not seeking to do that at all.
	The hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise, however, as did the Bishop of Winchester, that there are communities in this country with a significant non-Christian population. The new clause would give them the right to go shopping in large shops on Christmas day, should they so wish. I should like to emphasise, in relation to the argument advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on amendment No. 11, that this would not be compulsory. If someone presented a petition in which 1,000 people said that they would like a shop to open on Christmas day, and there were a counter-petition, the shop would not have to open. It would be for the shop owner to decide whether he wished to open his shop. If 1,000 people wanted a shop to open, but 5,000 people argued against that, the shop owner would risk annoying or losing many potential customers whose views had been expressed in the counter-petition if he opened his shop.
	Some of the arguments against amendment No. 11 have been based on the false understanding that it would introduce an element of compulsion. Would that it were possible that, if a community said that it wanted to keep its post office open and 1,000 people signed a petition to that effect, the post office would, ergo, be kept open. Sadly, that is not the case, and it would not be the case in relation to amendment No. 11. If 1,000 people said that they would like a shop to open on Christmas day, that would not be decisive in itself, but it would provide a trigger that would enable the owner to open—all other things being taken into account—should he or she so wish.

Eric Forth: That is all very well, but let us suppose that 1,000 people at one end of a large local authority area petitioned that a store at the opposite end of the area should open on Christmas day. That would not inconvenience those people. They would have operated the mechanism under amendment No. 11, but only the people in the immediate vicinity of the store—who had not petitioned for it to open—would suffer. Is that not a possibility?

Christopher Chope: Obviously, anything is possible. I cannot dispute that that is a possibility, but my right hon. Friend should accept that common sense would apply. This would be an issue of local public demand. If there is local public concern about shops opening on Christmas day, that should be dealt with through the planning process. There is nothing to prevent a provision that a shop should not open on Christmas day from being included in the terms of its planning permission. That would be a better way of reflecting local opinion on such issues than rejecting amendment No. 11.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst raised the issue of reasonable verification of religion in his objection to the new clause and the amendment. The census figures make it clear that the 23 per cent. of people who do not adhere to any religion are a mixture of people who said that they were non-believers and people who said that they were not prepared to answer the question. My right hon. Friend is right to say that there is no compulsion in the census on a person to say whether they are Christian or not. In reality, I doubt whether that would be a difficult problem to overcome, because it should be apparent to anyone who runs or owns a shop whether his employees are keen for the shop to open. It would be quite easy, in the form of a secret ballot, to find out whether people are Christian. It would not be necessary for an individual to be identified as a Christian in a shop in which most employees are non-Christian. The situation could be dealt with by other means, and as long as it was dealt with sensitively there would be no need for the identity of the person in question to become known to either the shop owner or to other employees.
	The only reason we are tabling the new clause and the amendment is the fact that this is essentially a restrictive Bill that seeks to impose greater restrictions than currently exist. Inevitably, if one wants to impose restrictions and to have exemptions to them, there will be some ambiguity and need for interpretation, and for common sense to be applied. If the Bill's promoter accepts the central argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and I that the reality is that we do not live in a monocultural society—much as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst might wish that we did—certainly so far as particular localities are concerned, that argument should be recognised and reflected in the Bill.
	I hope that, on reflection, the Bill's promoter will say, "Although I do not agree with its detail, I accept the principle behind the new clause." If the Bill is granted a Third Reading, I hope an amendment will be tabled in the other place to reflect the points that have been made in this debate. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire would be so arrogant as to suggest that the new clause is perfectly drafted and ideal, but the principle that we have been articulating is one that the promoter should take on board.

Kevan Jones: This has been a good debate and I do not want to impugn the motives of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), because they have raised issues that, in a multicultural society, need to be dealt with not only through this Bill but in other areas of public policy. However, there are clear problems in enforcing the provisions in new clause 1.
	Several Members have discussed the issue of intrusiveness and how we clarify an individual's religious beliefs. The hon. Member for Christchurch suggested the use of a secret ballot, but that would have to be policed. Do we really want local authorities to be able to pry into people's religious beliefs, which in some cases change over time? In my view, that would not be right, although it might be welcome to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), given his libertarian views. The state ought not to be able to ask people what their religious beliefs are.
	Moreover, the new clause would lead to discrimination against Christians. Ours is a Christian country and we should recognise that fact through Christmas day and other holidays. As I said earlier, it is clear that, under the new clause, if a Christian joined the staff of a shop the majority of whose employees were non-Christian, the shop could no longer open on Christmas day. That would put pressure on people to hire only non–Christians, and I am sorry, but I do not agree with that at all. Likewise, pressure should not be put on such an individual by non-Christians to change their religion or to leave the store's employment, simply because of their religious beliefs. It is a fundamental freedom of this country that the law and society tolerates religious beliefs irrespective of their nature; long may that continue.

Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful response to this debate, for which we are all obliged. However, is there not a flaw in the argument that he is developing? If a store were composed largely, but not exclusively, of non-Christian employees, the store owner could rely on amendment No. 11. He need not necessarily take action through the religious exception; he could seek to test support in the local community for his store's opening on Christmas day, so the effect that the hon. Gentleman fears might not come about.

Kevan Jones: I am grateful for that intervention and I shall deal with amendment No. 11 in a moment. In fact, new clause 1 contains the following phrase:
	"Where the owner of a large shop employs entirely non-Christian employees".
	It is clear that there would be pressure to employ people who are not Christian, if employing Christians would prevent shop owners from opening on Christmas day.
	The issue has rightly been raised of large Asian shops situated in multicultural areas. My Bill simply seeks to bring Christmas day into line with the Sunday Trading Act 1994. As things stand, a large store of more than 3,000 sq ft cannot in any case open on Christmas day if it falls on a Sunday, so my proposal can hardly be described as draconian.
	There is another problem with new clause 1. How would we police its provisions and verify people's individual religious beliefs? The new clause makes reference to a cut-off date of 1 November, but it is clear that employees will join and leave a store during the course of a given year, and in that regard the provision would put an administrative burden not only on the owner, but on the local authority in question.
	When the Department of Trade and Industry put out for consultation the proposal that Christmas day be brought into line with the 1994 Act, the various religious groups made no representations whatsoever. Although I understand the spirit behind the new clause, it would be difficult to enforce in practice and administratively very expensive.

Greg Knight: If the hon. Gentleman's Bill passes through this House today—in whatever form—and if, before it completes its entire legislative passage, members of the Asian community and non-Christian shop owners indicate that they want to discuss their concerns about the Bill with him, can he assure the House that he would be willing to agree to such a meeting?

Kevan Jones: I can, and I am sure that the Minister will want to address that issue in his reply. But in terms of public consultation—

Gerry Sutcliffe: Given that my hon. Friend has worked extensively on this Bill, he will be aware of the consultation that took place in 2003, and of the fact that no other religious groups commented on the proposals in the Bill. They did not regard them as a problem.

Kevan Jones: I certainly want to reinforce that point. I have received letters from owners of smaller shops in my constituency—very hard-working non-Christian families—expressing some concern. However, this Bill will not restrict their trade on Christmas day and other such days. So although I understand the reasoning behind the new clause, because of the way in which it is framed it would be very difficult to enforce and very expensive to implement.
	Various issues have been raised in the debate, and the question arises of whether we want to open up the can of worms that is the 1994 Act. Perhaps it is time to look at some of the broader issues, although I accept that such legislation had a painful passage when it was last considered in the House.
	New clause 11 tries to address an issue that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) raised on Second Reading: Stan's Shop, and the question of local demand for stores to open in rural areas. I looked into whether that could be done. This is an attempt to do so, and I accept the spirit in which it has been proposed. Again, however, the issues raised in the debate this morning have shown that, in practice, it will prove very difficult. For example, the question of why it should be 1,000 persons has been raised. It would be a problem if 1,000 people in a town or village wanted the shops to open, but another 3,000, or 4,000 did not. Who would arbitrate on whether the store should be open?
	Another problem is that many large shops are based out of town. To take one example, Sainsbury's in Pitty Me—just over the border of my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg)—serves a large catchment area. It straddles two local district council areas. Many people in my constituency might want the store to be open on Christmas day, but those in the neighbouring constituency might not. That is always a problem when stores straddle constituency or local authority borders.
	Another problem with the proposals is that they could lead to aggressive campaigning between various stores. The whole point of my Bill is to ask whether consumer demand should dictate whether stores open on Christmas day. I do not believe that it should, because, for reasons that were advanced on Second Reading, I want Christmas day to be a special day.
	Finally, the proposals are not practicable because of the possible horrendous costs that would be incurred by local authorities in attempting to police the measures. Amendment No. 11 refers to the electoral registers as providing proof that people are indeed who they claim to be. However, having to check every one of the 1,000 names would be onerous. Similarly, I know that when constituents are thanked for signing a petition, they often say, "When did I sign that?" It would again be difficult to police the names on the petition. I finish by acknowledging the reasons behind the proposals, particularly in rural constituencies such as my own.

Edward Leigh: I hope that the House will forgive me for speaking briefly on this matter. I am motivated to contribute because our interesting debate has pointed to a fundamental dilemma in our society. I have one crucial point. I am not a libertarian, although I understand the libertarian point of view, whereby society should not judge anything and people should be allowed to do anything that they want, as long as they do not harm other people. That is not my view because I believe in society. I believe in the building blocks of society—family, community and nation. Christmas day is part of our culture.
	I believe that there is something dangerous about the proposed amendments. New clause 1 is particularly dangerous because it identifies one part of our community and sets it apart from others. I recognise that although we are still a predominantly Christian country, many people are not Christians. We all accept that, and it does not matter. The fact remains that we are a predominantly Christian society. We recognise that there are Muslims, Hindus, Jews, non-believers, atheists, agnostics and so forth. That is fine: let them all have their beliefs, but we are a fundamentally Christian society.
	What worries me about the new clause is that it identifies certain people as being different. It is, of course, completely unworkable in any event. It requires only one member of staff to be a Christian for the new clause to be inapplicable. Are there any shops in that position? I doubt it, but that is not the point. The problem is that the proposals are about creating a new society in our country, in which people are deliberately set apart because of their religion. They are placed in a sort of ghetto, which I believe is profoundly dangerous. We should never allow that.

Christopher Chope: But surely that has already happened and is happening. It is why questions in the census ask people about their religion. It is why forms no longer ask people for their "Christian names", but refer to "first names".

Edward Leigh: I am happy that people's sensitivities are respected. I do not want to impose my views on anyone. If I know that it will offend someone attending my constituency surgery if I ask them for their Christian names, I will not say that, but ask for their first names. However, the new clause is effectively saying to society as a whole, "Look at that store over there; it is a Muslim store; it is the only store that will be open on Christmas day because is has only Muslims working for it". Is that the sort of society that we want to live in, or do we want a society in which people are happy with being Muslims, Jews or non-believers, but are part of society as a whole? If I lived in a Muslim, Jewish or Hindu country, I would respect the general mores of that society. If I were a store owner, I would not want to be setting my little Christian store up as open in the middle of Delhi or wherever. That is not what creating society is all about.

Greg Knight: With respect, my hon. Friend is getting carried away with his own rhetoric. The number of non-Christians in our society is 29 per cent.—almost a third—so we are not talking about a minuscule number. Furthermore, the proposed amendments—and, effectively, the Bill—relate to large shops only. My hon. Friend's scenario with the little Muslim shop on the corner being the only shop open does not apply. [Interruption.] Small shops will be allowed to open. We are trying to allow large supermarkets and stores to open where they are run by and serve non-Christians.

Edward Leigh: I precisely did not say that. We all know that the Bill does not apply to small shops; we all know that small shops remain open on a Sunday. My point is that the new clause relates to large stores and sets apart a particular store precisely because it is manned by people who are not Christians. The implication may be that they are "not British". It is the wrong implication: just because people are not Christian, it does not mean that they are any less British.
	Let us be honest about it. Christmas day is not just a Christian festival. The real Christian festival is Easter day. Christmas day is about being British: it is a festival of giving, of not working, of being with one's family. That is what it is all about. That is why, although the debate has produced an interesting argument, I am wholly opposed to the amendments.

Julian Brazier: I shall be extremely brief. I am a strong supporter of the Bill and I am aware of the passage of the clock. I have the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and for my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), but I believe that the new clause is profoundly mistaken. It would be intrusive, bureaucratic and it would indeed attack social cohesion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has rightly argued.
	I have no difficulties or dilemmas: no one has ever mistaken me for a libertarian, or, indeed, a liberal. I believe firmly that society must look to the best of the past and seek to reform those things that need reform. Social cohesion is an overwhelming concern for Government and Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire really want a situation in which the only Christian employee in, say, an Islamic business—I choose Islamic only because of the international tensions of the moment—finds himself in the odious position of preventing the store from opening on Christmas day unless he is willing publicly to leave aside his faith?
	I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce)—the Liberal Democrat spokesman has left us, at least for the moment—say that opposing the amendment would mean opposing a trend that is already happening in society. Surely one does not have to be an old-fashioned Conservative like me to see that some trends are undesirable. I shall not waste the House's time by furnishing it with some obvious examples, but I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire to withdraw his new clause.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I agree with what the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has just said. I, too, will be brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) has taken us through all the issues raised, quite properly, by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), whose skill in putting his arguments I fully acknowledge. It is a sad aspect of the time scales within which we work that we did not have an opportunity to look at many of those issues during the Committee stage. Everyone in the Committee fully supported the Bill, as do most Members of the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reflect on that support: he said that he did not like the Bill or think it necessary, and he has quite properly put his arguments.

Eric Forth: In the friendliest possible way, may I caution the Minister against using terms that we hear all too often on a Friday about the extent of support for a Bill? He would not, I hope, want us to test that support in a Division, so I ask him, and anyone else who comes along on a Friday to support a Bill of their choice, not to tell us what support it has; otherwise some of us might be tempted to test the proposition.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I acknowledge the experience and skill of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the point that he makes. The debate has been a sincere one about the issues, which is how the House should operate.
	The Bill is not, as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire suggested, just about trade unions. It enjoys support outside the House from a large number of organisations, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham noted. It is an important Bill that respects the special nature of Christmas day as a holiday for all sections of society, irrespective of faith.
	The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire should know that there was extensive consultation on the Bill in 2003 with all groups. There were no significant objections from religious groups. The burdens that new clause 1 and amendment No. 11 would impose have been mentioned, and previously debated, on the money resolution—such as the costs of the Bill, particularly focusing on what "negligible" means. The point is that significant costs would arise from the Bill if the new clause and amendment were accepted.
	The Bill is about large shops. The industry has said that it favours legislation on the basis that there would be a domino effect if one shop opened because others would follow suit, and we do not want that. Given the sincerity of the debate and the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, I hope that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire will withdraw his new clause.

Greg Knight: I thank all who have taken part in an interesting debate for their suggestions and, indeed, criticisms, of the new clause and the amendment. They have done democracy a service by expressing their views and showing their support or opposition to my proposal.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said that he did not want to impose his views on anybody, but the gist of his argument was in fact that he did seek to impose his views on those who are non-Christian when it comes to opening large shops on Christmas day. In framing legislation, we must take account of the 29 per cent. or so of our society who are not Christians.
	I was heartened by the comments of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who said that even though there had been consultation, if, during the passage of the Bill, anyone wanted to see him to express their concerns, he would be willing to listen. That is a commendable attitude and I thank him for it. I wonder what he would say to an Asian businessman who came to his surgery and said, "Why has my large shop got to close on Christmas day when I am not a Christian, my work force is not Christian and most of my customers are not Christian?" I hope that such a person would get an answer because we have not had one yet to that question.
	I am not, particularly, a practising Christian, but I do support Christian ethics—the beliefs in tolerance, in fairness and in accepting and appreciating the views of people who hold a different opinion from oneself. If I sense the mood of the House correctly, it is against what I seek to achieve, but I hope that if any section of our society feels wronged by the Bill, the promoter will be willing to listen, even at a late hour. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Prohibition of Opening of Large Shops on Christmas Day

Eric Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 8, at end insert—
	'(2A)   Subsection (1) does not apply to any shop where the trade or business consists wholly or mainly of the sale of books.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 1, line 8, at end insert—
	'(2A)   Subsection (1) does not apply to any shop where the trade or business consists wholly or mainly of the sale of children's toys and games.'.
	No. 8, in page 1, line 8, at end insert—
	'(2A)   Subsection (1) does not apply to any shop which meets a prescribed local need.
	(2B)   in this section, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
	(2C)   In this section, the power to make regulations is exercisable by statutory instrument, and any regulations are to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
	No. 10, in page 1, line 8, at end insert—
	'(2A)   Subsection (1) does not apply to any shop—
	(a)   which is a registered pharmacy, and
	(b)   where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of the retail sale of medicinal products and medical and surgical appliances.'.

Eric Forth: The promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), said on Second Reading that
	"the Bill is based on the provisions of the 1994 Act. The Bill will adopt the same exemptions from prohibition as contained in the Act".—[Official Report, 26 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1156.]
	He then went on to list those exemptions. I thought at the time that an opportunity had been missed simply to carry forward the Sunday Trading Act 1994. I understand why the hon. Gentleman wanted to do that: a large part of his argument was that there was an anomaly or a loophole in the 1994 Act and that the thrust of what we are being asked to do now was to rectify it. Given, however, that we have had 10 years' experience in dealing with these matters, it might have been more appropriate to use this opportunity to revisit the exemptions in the 1994 Act to see whether they were still appropriate.
	I recall that reservations were expressed in 1994 about the list of exemptions. I could, of course, have gone back through all the debates and rehearsed the speeches all over again today, which might have been amusing, and even slightly informative, but which would have been more than a little tedious. None the less, it is relevant to reconsider schedule 1 to the 1994 Act, which I seek to amend. Some of the exemptions caused puzzlement at the time, and they may still do so.
	The first exemption was any shop at a farm where the trade or business carried on consists solely or mainly of the sale of produce from that farm. I suspect that, then and now, that is relatively uncontroversial. Farm shops are unusual in many ways: they are, almost by definition, remote from most community centres; they are largely—if not exclusively—family businesses; and they conduct, again almost by definition, a fairly restricted type of business. That was uncontroversial then and it is uncontroversial now.
	The next exemption—concerning any shop whose trade or business consists wholly or mainly of the sale of intoxicating liquor—leads one into all sorts of different territory. In the debates on Sunday trading at the time, I remember people using the phrase, "Why booze, not Bibles?" It seemed odd that we were permitting the sale and purchase of intoxicating liquor on a Sunday, but not of a Bible.
	The next exemptions concerned shops involved with motor supplies and accessories, and cycle supplies and accessories. Also exempt were registered pharmacies and shops selling medicinal products and medical and surgical appliances. Shops at designated airports and at railway stations were exempt, as were service areas, petrol filling stations, and, intriguingly, any stand used for the retail sale of goods during the course of an exhibition.
	I thought then, and do now, that the list was interesting, puzzling and not a little anomalous. I suspect that it was rather arbitrary at the time, and it seems so now. It raises the question as to how far one seeks to make exemptions to a general provision covering trading on a Sunday, as it was then, or Christmas day trading, which we are discussing now.
	The thought occurred to me that we should perhaps seek to remove some of the exemptions rather than carry them forward. I was intrigued that the hon. Member for North Durham did not seek to do so in proposing the Bill. I am not just a closet libertarian, but a full-blown practising libertarian, and I will now revert to that part of my nature.

Julian Brazier: I am enjoying this morning enormously, but I particularly enjoyed my right hon. Friend's use of the phrase "that part of my nature." I am so pleased to discover that there is also a strongly conservative part.

Eric Forth: I like to think that I am a conservative libertarian; perhaps that will help my hon. Friend.
	We should think seriously today about the list of exemptions in the context of Christmas day; hence my amendments. The first change that I suggest returns to the question of booze and Bibles, but goes wider. Of all the stores that were to be allowed to open on Christmas day, it seemed odd that we were not allowing bookstores to open on Christmas day. That is not just because someone might feel the sudden urge to buy and read the Bible—not a completely unlikely occurrence. Also, someone given a book token as a Christmas gift might like the opportunity to use it to buy a book on Christmas day itself to read to their children, for family entertainment or to fill in those hours of Christmas day during which television is unutterably awful.

Gerald Howarth: Parents could take their children to any church in the land, which they would find open, where they would be able to peruse the Bible free of charge. The following day, having introduced their children to the experience, they could go to an open bookshop—so there is no need for bookshops to be open on Christmas day.

Eric Forth: That may be the case, but my hon. Friend could not guarantee that the version of the Bible that they wanted to read would necessarily be available at their local church. Despite the fact that I am not a churchgoer, or indeed a practising Christian, I know that there are many splendid versions of the Bible. The local church might be one of those ghastly, trendy, modern ones with one of those ghastly, trendy, modern Bibles. My hon. Friend's constituent might want the authorised version to read.

Gerald Howarth: As churchwarden of the Royal Garrison church in Aldershot, I can assure my right hon. Friend that I shall make it my business to ensure that the King James version is available to all those who believe in the proper rendering of the Bible. In Aldershot all will be well, and I shall try to ensure that the same is available throughout the country.

Eric Forth: I admire my hon. Friend's assiduity and I am sure that his constituents will be as grateful to him now, and at the next election, as they were at the last. However, that does not solve the problem. We are legislating nationwide, and not allowing local discretion; I rather wish we were, and we may return to that question in future. Given the context of the list of exemptions, it strikes me as peculiar that we are allowed to buy the items I listed but not books.

Kevan Jones: The right hon. Gentleman's line of argument is interesting, but I wish to question the definition of a shop that sells mostly books. I understand that he has mentioned people buying the Bible, but would large licensed sex shops—which may sell mostly books, but sell other things as well—be allowed to open on Christmas day?

Eric Forth: The answer would, I presume, be yes. I simply carried forward the wording from the 1994 Act—the hon. Gentleman did the same in his Bill—and that refers to shops whose business consists "wholly or mainly" of the sale of intoxicating liquor etc. The same would apply to a shop whose business consisted wholly or mainly of the sale of books. I make no distinction about the sort of books, because I believe that in a free society, adults should be able to buy any sort of printed material.

Colin Pickthall: Has the right hon. Gentleman estimated the number of book stores large enough to fall within the ambit of the Bill?

Eric Forth: Happily, that number is increasing. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of excellent book stores such as Waterstone's, and stores such as Borders, and Barnes and Noble—stores that I visit as a regular visitor to America—which are coming to this country and offering their excellent services to the public. They have pioneered the idea of incorporating coffee shops into book stores—something that had been available in the United States for some time. One can go to a book store and peruse books while enjoying a cup of coffee and, if one is not on the Atkins diet, a cake.
	The answer to the hon. Gentleman's perfectly fair question is that in future I hope that the number will increase. In Florida, the part of the United States I visit most regularly, I have to drive 40 miles to my nearest book store—but given that gasoline is now $2 a gallon, I may have to think again.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again about addressing his comments to the amendments.

Eric Forth: Yes indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was being seduced by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and trying to give a comprehensive answer to his pertinent question.

Greg Knight: There is a good example in America that supports my right hon. Friend's view. In the Georgetown area of Washington, when all other shops are closed, the bars, restaurants and book stores remain open. They seem to be on to something. If the law says that it is all right for a bookshop in an airport to open on Christmas day, why should the rest of us be denied the opportunity to go to Borders and peruse the books there on that day?

Eric Forth: That is a fair point. I cannot remember whether the area is K street or P street in Washington DC; it is one or the other. My right hon. Friend has pointed out yet another anomaly. It seems rather unfair on the public at large that those who choose to travel and use a railway station, service area or airport will be able to avail themselves of such services, because of the exemptions that the Bill already contains, while the rest of us cannot do so. I would have thought—surprisingly, this does not appear to be the case—that including books in the list would have been utterly uncontroversial. What could be more innocent, pleasurable, educational and positive than being able to buy a book, even if it is on Christmas day?
	A similar argument applies to amendment No. 7, which makes the case for allowing the sale of children's toys and games on Christmas day. I would have thought that that was almost self-evidently reasonable. Let us suppose that someone had inadvertently forgotten, or failed to buy, a toy or game for a child in their family or elsewhere, or was suddenly invited to visit somebody on Christmas day without having purchased a gift for a child. Rather than disappoint the child, would it not be proper to permit the sale of children's toys and games on Christmas day, of all days? I would have thought that that was self-evidently a very strong argument. If one can buy liquor, why can one not buy a child's toy or game on the day of giving?

Dari Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that for children, Christmas day is a day of magic? Most of them think that their presents have not come from their parents or a shop, even though they may have seen them in shops. Is he not suggesting a very functional way of treating Christmas day?

Eric Forth: I do not know what sort of magic kingdom the hon. Lady occupies, but I think that reality has intruded rather more on many people's lives, and sadly, that is the case even for young children.
	Let us suppose that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) were kind enough to invite me at the last minute to join his family celebrations on Christmas day. What would happen if I were more than happy to accept, but I thought that it would be appropriate to take gifts for his children? Given that he has six children, that might a rather expensive proposition, but it would be entirely appropriate to take gifts for his younger children. What would be wrong in my wanting to purchase something appropriate for a child when visiting another family on Christmas day?

Gerald Howarth: I have a solution for my right hon. Friend. Since motorway service stations and petrol stations are open, and as products that I know are of interest to children will available in such places, he need have no problem. I know that the children of our hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough would appreciate any small gift from my right hon. Friend.

Eric Forth: On the face of it, that proposition seems to answer the particular case that I made, but it does not deal with the more general case. Where the journey from the visitor to the host does not involve a motorway journey, my hon. Friend's helpful suggestion will not apply.

Greg Knight: If our hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough were true to his beliefs, he would not accept Christmas presents purchased on Christmas day. So far as the magic of Christmas is concerned, what about the poor family who have a burglary on Christmas eve in which all the presents are stolen? [Laughter.]

Eric Forth: My right hon. Friend illustrates very well the sort of problem or dilemma that may arise, and I do not for the life of me understand why his suggestions caused such hilarity. On each Christmas day, tragic and difficult circumstances of the sort that he describes must arise throughout the country. I do not see why we should not allow the flexibility that I propose. After all, if we all wake up on Christmas day with a hangover after over-celebrating on Christmas eve and decide that we need a hair of the dog, we can go straight out and buy intoxicating liquor, because the exemptions will allow us to do so.
	It is beyond me to understand why hon. Members should resist the thought, as I gather those present do, that we should be able to buy books or children's toys on Christmas day, when we can go out and buy booze.I simply do not understand it. Neither do I understand the apparent resistance to the idea that, having had 10 years' experience of the 1994 Act and the exemptions that it contains, we should be able to look at it again and perhaps add to it or even subtract from it. I cannot see why that is creating such difficulty.
	I think that I can understand why the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who may be able to expand on this point, wanted to slide from the Sunday trading provisions to the Christmas day provisions as uncontroversially as possible. I suspect that he may well be proved right in his judgment some time later this morning. None the less, it would have been helpful if we had decided to look again at the list of exemptions, which my amendments seek to do.
	I had thought that in turning to amendment No. 8, I would be moving from simple and uncontroversial suggestions to a proposal that would be somewhat more controversial in a number of ways. The amendment states:
	"Subsection (1) does not apply to any shop which meets a prescribed local need."
	In this instance, I did indeed want to introduce a much wider degree of flexibility. I confess that in speaking to the amendment, I am trying to edge towards that element of local discretion that I have mentioned once or twice already, to see whether we can pay much more respect to local communities and their needs. The irony is that I have had to approach the matter through a route that I would normally deprecate and be uneasy about. Proposed subsection (2B) states:
	"in this section, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."
	I confess that that was the only way into this issue that I was able to find for the time being, but I hope that it helps to establish the principle, or precedent.
	In a sense, what I am proposing harks back to amendment No. 11, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), which we discussed a short time ago. I am trying to reach out and see whether we can identify communities in which one could well make a case for allowing a particular shop to open on Christmas day for particular local community needs. Such a need could be religious or it could be rather different. In a remote or scattered community, the only store might be a large store that provides a wide range of products and services, but it could be established that it was relevant on Christmas day. Such a store might sell almost all the things that have been mentioned, whether in my amendments or in the existing list of exemptions. I wanted to see whether we could introduce some degree of flexibility, even though, in the case of amendment No. 8, it would be through the discretion of the Secretary of State, in order to help such a community.
	Again, I would have thought that that would be relatively uncontroversial. After all, I think that all political parties now claim that they are signed up to elements of local discretion and local decision making. Certainly the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are fully signed up to the concept of devolution, whatever that may mean. Very much in that spirit, I am suggesting a mechanism, in the context of the Bill—given that it is essentially restrictive—to allow for an easement, which might well be appropriate, so that more attention can be given to the needs of local communities.
	Just glancing at amendment No. 10, I was slightly puzzled by its content. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) can explain this, but it seems to me that it is already covered by paragraph 3(1)(d) of schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994. I am not sure that I see the distinction between that and the amendment, but that is for them to explain.

Greg Knight: If my right hon. Friend looks at the 1994 Act, he will see that paragraph 3(1)(d) states that a registered pharmacy is exempt only if it
	"is not open for the retail sale of any goods other than medicinal products and medical and surgical appliances".
	Amendment No. 10 is drafted slightly wider, and would allow a Boots type of store to open and sell any of the products within its range.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I am sure that he will want to expand on that in due course. It just shows how carelessly I read his amendment, and schedule 1.
	I might mention in passing—I will return to this theme on Third Reading—that I have looked at what happens in other countries. Although we should never slavishly follow what happens in other countries, it can sometimes be quite informative. I got the Library to look at what happens in broadly relevant and parallel countries, such as Canada, Australia and the United States—[Interruption.] I deliberately did not mention any European countries, because I do not regard them as in any way parallel or similar to this country in any respect, either politically or culturally. I preferred to look at the real countries of Canada, Australia and the United States, as opposed to the increasingly pseudo countries absorbed into the ever more embracing European Union.
	In Canada on Christmas day and new year's day, all businesses affected by the Retail Business Holidays Act must close unless they qualify for an exemption. The exemptions are interesting. I did not replicate them in my amendments, but in a way, I wish that I had. According to the Act, small stores under 2,400 sq ft—note the square feet; the good old Canadians are at least traditional in that respect—with a maximum of three employees, which is a variable that we have not introduced, that sell food, tobacco, antiques or handicrafts, may be open. That is another interesting possibility that we might want to consider at a subsequent stage. Gas stations and garden supply outlets are also exempt from closing requirements. Other exceptions affect businesses including laundromats and car rental offices, which are not defined by law as retail businesses, and therefore not bound by the Act.
	I mentioned that in passing, just to illustrate the different nuances that one can get in other broadly similar cultures. They are worth looking at, and we may want to return to them. Perhaps I am just putting down a marker that should I ever come anywhere near the top of the private Members' Bill ballot, which I pray every year I will not, there may be some scope for coming back to the issue of Sunday trading and Christmas day trading and reconsidering the exemptions.
	I have just described my little list of exemptions. I hope that the House is sympathetic to it, because by and large, it is pretty innocuous and, in some cases, would be genuinely valuable. I hope that the House will find relevant the fact that a similar approach is taken in other countries—I gave just one example, that of Canada. I also hope that the House accepts that this is an appropriate occasion to reconsider the list, to update it and to make it a bit more flexible to meet the reasonable needs that I am sure can exist on Christmas day.

Malcolm Bruce: The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has got himself into some difficulties. I am not sure which way he is coming from. Having been on the receiving end of his taunts about my party, I must say that he seems to be behaving in the way in which he usually accuses Liberal Democrats of behaving, which is to face both ways.
	On the more serious matter of the Bill, the starting point is that Christmas day should be special and, in an ideal world, no one would be shopping or doing anything on it. Then we say that we should look at the parallel of the Sunday trading laws to specify what people should and should not do on Christmas day. That is worrying, because the House is making choices about what people should or should not do on Christmas day. The amendments tabled by the right hon. Gentleman demonstrate the anomaly of that position, as it would be all right to buy strong liquor but not books. People talk about the classic values of Victorian Britain, but Scrooge could buy almost everything that he needed on Christmas morning after his conversion by the three ghosts overnight. In Victorian Britain, restrictive trading was not common.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Good legislation is the result of consultation, and this Bill was subject to thorough consultation. More than 90 per cent. of respondents favoured keeping Christmas day special, which is why the Bill has proceeded as far as it has.

Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister. As I have made clear, I favour keeping Christmas day special. My family and I, like many other people, treat it as a special day. I am not an avid churchgoer, but I sometimes take my family to church at Christmas. I celebrate Christmas as a family event, but I also acknowledge its religious significance, and I believe that the majority of people in the country want to do the same. I am not hostile to the Bill, as I understand the motivation behind it, but I have some practical reservations. We seem to be saying that big shops should not open but lots of little ones should.

Chris Bryant: We are saying that they can open.

Malcolm Bruce: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but there seems to be an arbitrary distinction about which shops should open. Are we saying that people should be allowed to work and shop if they choose, but only at places specified on a list? I accept that there has been consultation on the nature of those outlets, but we are nevertheless making a decision about what it is reasonable for people to do. It is one thing to say that we want to observe Christmas day and keep it special, but another to say that as a result only certain shops can open at certain times.
	Consultation on the Sunday trading laws showed that while people accept restrictions on the opening hours of supermarkets and other shops in England, many believe that 10 am is a late opening time. If someone wakes early on a Sunday morning and decides that they want bacon and eggs for breakfast, 10 am may be a little late to go out and buy them. I do not know whether that is the reasoning behind their choice, but people would like the shops to open a little earlier. We are therefore in danger of passing a Bill that, in five or 10 years' time—and probably long before that—Members will wish to amend in the light of changing circumstances.
	The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst therefore demonstrate that we are making an arbitrary distinction, which does not make sense in relation to individual choice. I freely concede that I have always taken a libertarian position on the matter, just as I have on Sunday trading.

Eric Forth: I am slightly disappointed to be getting the blame as I, too, am reluctant to accept the anomalous list of exemptions in the Sunday Trading Act 1994 that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) has transferred to his Bill. I am simply trying to make that list less anomalous or more flexible, and I should have thought that the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) would approve of that. If he does not like the restrictions in the existing list, can he not go along with my slightly less restrictive list?

Malcolm Bruce: I probably could, but I am not sure what sort of legislation the right hon. Gentleman wants. I am fairly certain what he does not want, but I am not at all sure what he does want. I have made my preferences clear, and the majority of my colleagues are enthusiastic in their support for the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). Keeping Christmas day special commands widespread support, and many people who are not religious or whose faith is non-Christian accept that others wish to do so. However, that does not mean that we should impose a restrictive framework on which shops should open and what people can and cannot do, and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has highlighted that dilemma.

Gerald Howarth: First, I apologise to the promoter of the Bill, of which I am a strong supporter, for not being present earlier.
	The day my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills, in whatever position but particularly if he is in the top six, he may rest assured that on the days on which his Bill appears before the House, the House will never have been so full on a Friday of hon. Members seeking to exact the maximum revenge and subjecting his Bill to the depth of scrutiny to which he has subjected any number of Bills on a Friday. Of course, we all thoroughly support my right hon. Friend in pursuing his parliamentary duty so diligently that he has ensured that much legislation that would otherwise have gone through without the requisite scrutiny has been subjected to proper scrutiny. Nevertheless, we all look forward to the day that his Bill comes in the first six.
	As I said, I am a strong supporter of the Bill. Like the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), I believe that Christmas day is particularly special in this country, and that that is the view of the overwhelming majority of people in this country. It is therefore important that we ensure that the special character of Christmas day remains. That is the purpose of the Bill, as much as it is to ensure that those who wish to spend Christmas day with their family are able to do so and are not obliged to work or penalised for wishing to observe Christmas day with their family.
	When moving the amendments, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst started by saying that he was looking to repeal some of the exemptions. In fact, all he has done is to add to the list of exemptions. As I am not, like him, a libertarian, although I believe in individual freedom, I hoped he would help us repeal some of the exemptions, but he added more. There must be a question as to whether farm shops ought to be open on Christmas day and whether there is something special about them or about off-licences. The rest of the existing exemptions are there for good reason.
	I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the exemptions fall into two categories. The first is emergency services. We would all agree that the availability of medical supplies at pharmacies on Christmas day would fall into that category. Unless we propose to stop trains and cars running, it is important that those facilities should also be open. I am not sure about exhibition stands. I do not see why those should be open on Christmas day.
	The other exemptions fall into the second category, which I would describe as facilitating the getting together of families on Christmas day. We live in a society where families are widely dispersed throughout the land, so for many families it is, sadly, essential that they drive on Christmas day in order to be with their relatives. Unless families are fortunate enough to drive a car with good fuel consumption, which I do, even though it is a French car—I cannot help that—they will have to refuel. It is unrealistic to expect petrol stations to remain open but not the shops attached to them. Anyway, those shops fall within the small shop category. So there seems to be a lot of logic in some of those exemptions in so far as they fall into those two categories, but the Government—who, I understand, support the Bill—might usefully consider removing some of the exemptions in so far as they do not fall into those categories, particularly if they are determined to maintain the special nature of Christmas day.

Christopher Chope: What does my hon. Friend think about the rules on stations? Stations are not open on Christmas day because the people who run the railways do not think that there is sufficient demand. They do not buy into his argument that travelling by train on Christmas day is necessary to facilitate families' getting together.

Gerald Howarth: As train services do not run on Christmas day, there is no need for railway shops to open. I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support.

Eric Forth: rose—

Gerald Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend wish to support me as well?

Eric Forth: I was slightly disappointed that my hon. Friend sought to criticise me for not seeking to reduce the list of exemptions. He had ample opportunity, did he not, to table amendments to the Bill, but he saw fit not to do so; so I find his criticism rather misplaced.

Gerald Howarth: I did not realise that my right hon. Friend was so sensitive. He is one of my very closest friends, and I have clearly hurt him. I really do apologise to him. I will buy him half a pint of beer to make amends. Of course, he is on rather stronger ground in so far as he is quite right: I should have tabled some amendments to give expression to our mutual desire to reduce regulation.
	Inevitably, the list is arbitrary—the point that my right hon. Friend is making—and it is pointless to pretend otherwise. We are trying to achieve a proper modus vivendi, whereby we can facilitate people travelling to their families on Christmas day and provide emergency facilities for people. Those are the two criteria that should apply. In so far as any of the exemptions does not fall within those criteria, it could usefully be excluded. Perhaps that is, unfortunately, for another day. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see fit to withdraw the amendment in due course.

Greg Knight: I rise to speak primarily to amendment No. 10. I would welcome hearing what the Minister has to say about that amendment because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has said, it is similar to the exemption in paragraph 3(1)(d) of schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994, but it does not mirror that exemption. The 1994 Act exempts
	"any shop that . . . is a registered pharmacy, and . . . is not open for the sale of goods other than medicinal products and medical and surgical appliances."
	That could cause a difficulty for large stores, such as those in the Boots Group, that are primarily chemists and pharmacies, but which over the years have started to sell other products. One can imagine, for example, a pensioner going into one of those shops on Christmas day to get some urgently needed pills and wanting to buy a shower cap while in the store. As I read the original 1994 Act, those in the shop would commit an offence if they sold a product that could not be described as a medical or surgical appliance while trading on Christmas day. In this day and age, it would be unrealistic to expect the owner of such a large pharmacy somehow to block off or cover certain stalls. Does it really matter if an item that is not strictly medical is bought as an ancillary purchase?

Ann Coffey: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that 3,000 sq ft is a large area? Many Boots shops are smaller than that and current Sunday trading laws do not apply to them. The Bill would not apply to them, either. He gave an example of a pensioner who goes to a store. She would be more likely to go to a small store, which could open if Boots wanted it to. The area of 3,000 sq ft is large and we are therefore considering large Boots stores that are sometimes located outside town centres. We should bear that in mind.

Greg Knight: I accept that, but the local chemist may decide that he does not want to open. Anyone who has to go out for a medicinal supply on Christmas day must shop around. As the hon. Lady knows, chemist's shops often put notices on their doors to help their customers, explaining that they are closed on Christmas day, but that store X at Y street is open. The amendment would ensure that a large pharmacy that opened would not run the risk of being prosecuted for selling goods other than the medicinal products that are mentioned in the 1994 Act.

Eric Forth: I did not want to let the hon. Lady's intervention pass without pointing out that 3,000 sq ft is no bigger than an average-sized detached house. We are not used in this country to measuring house sizes in sq ft but I assure my right hon. Friend that a house of 3,000 sq ft is no bigger than average. Such a store would not therefore be very large.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I hope that the Under-Secretary accepts that amendment No. 10 is not a wrecking amendment, but seeks a modest relaxation of the rules simply to ensure that the large pharmacy that goes to the trouble of opening on Christmas day does not have to monitor the items that it sells through the till. I therefore hope that he will react favourably to amendment No. 10.
	Amendment No. 8, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst tabled, is interesting. First, it goes against everything for which he has argued in the past: giving Ministers the power to prescribe regulations that the House does not supervise. In other words, the amendment would give a Minister carte blanche. Secondly, if I understand the amendment correctly, it would mean that a Minister would be in order to say, "I now have the power to make the regulations. I do not think that the measure needs to be widened and I therefore decline to make them." It would appear to give a Minister the opportunity to take the power to widen the scope of the Bill without giving hon. Members a commitment that he intends to use it.
	The power is useful because it would mean that we did not have to go through the process again if any further minor adjustments were deemed necessary in future. Oppositions do not normally like giving Ministers such a power. However, in the case that we are considering, the Minister might want to reflect on it and decide to accept it even if he has no intention of using it today.
	The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) made several attacks on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. For example, he said that, a moment ago, my right hon. Friend opposed new clause 1 but now advocated amendment No. 8, and that my right hon. Friend did not support giving Ministers powers to make law through regulations but now proposed that. My right hon. Friend based much of his speech in a bookshop. He reminds one of the character in literature called Janus, given that his arguments have changed since the earlier part of the debate to the view that he has now reached. However, I am delighted to support amendment No. 8.
	My right hon. Friend has not persuaded me about amendments Nos. 6 and 7 because of the point that the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) made. My point about chemists was different and I believe that if one wishes to buy a book on Christmas day, one does not need to have recourse to a large bookshop. I am therefore sorry that my right hon. Friend has not carried me with him on amendments Nos. 6 and 7.

Kevan Jones: I accept that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is trying, with his amendments, to open up the debate on exemptions. The problem with framing this Bill, as with the 1994 Act, has been that whatever we add to the list of exemptions will create difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman is correct in asserting that I do not want to reopen the entire debate on the 1994 Act, because I was not a Member at that time, but I know that there was much heated debate and horse trading to get it enacted.
	Turning to the points that have been made on amendment No. 6—for example, on books—the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is quite right to say that there are many outlets for access to a Bible on Christmas day. Someone can view a Bible in a church, for example. In the smaller bookshops that still exist and have not been taken over by larger retailers, Bibles can be purchased, along with a whole range of books. On the point about being able to buy gifts, convenience stores, railways stations and other outlets have a range of books available. In all honesty, I would not consider the ability to purchase a book as an essential service, unlike access to a pharmacy.

Eric Forth: What about booze?

Kevan Jones: That might be essential for the celebration of Christmas in some people's eyes, although I would not agree.
	We come back to the point that several Members made eloquently on Second Reading: are we suggesting that, with all the trading days that we have in the year, Christmas should be just another trading day because people cannot plan their Christmas shopping during the lead-up to Christmas? That period already sees not only every Sunday being used for shopping, but late-night opening and other ample opportunities for people to buy everything, including booze and Bibles, that they wish to purchase.
	There is a similar position with children's toys and games. I know that the family of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) will be waiting in trepidation for a visit on Christmas day from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but I am sure that, should he arrive, he would have had ample opportunity on the way to Gainsborough to purchase small gifts for them.

Chris Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman would be a present in his own right.

Kevan Jones: Obviously, some people would agree with that. The right hon. Gentleman would certainly make an entertaining Christmas day for the family of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and, no doubt, others. There is opportunity, in smaller convenience stores and other outlets, to purchase emergency supplies or presents on the way to Gainsborough.
	I understand that, under amendment No. 8, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst seeks to recognise the fact that there are certain needs and conditions in some areas, especially rural ones, that do not exist in large cities. However, there would be problems in implementing the amendment. How would the right hon. Gentleman define "prescribed local need", and who would make the decision on what that need was?

Eric Forth: The Secretary of State.

Kevan Jones: I am sorry, but I should not like to give the Secretary of State such wide-ranging powers. I foresee great legal challenges if he allowed a store to be exempt in one area but not in another. The amendment would be expensive and bureaucratic to implement, and it might go against what the Bill is trying to achieve—to keep the special nature of Christmas day—and turn that day into just another shopping day if we had the extensive use of "prescribed local need." No doubt, many large shop owners and companies would describe the service that they offer the local community as meeting a clear need. Furthermore, in most communities, there are extensive local convenience stores, which are mainly family-run, that are not covered by the Bill and will be allowed to open on Christmas day. As for the person on their way to Gainsborough who finds that they have forgotten a packet of stuffing or cranberry sauce, they will find that in most communities there are well-run convenience stores providing that type of service. I reiterate that the Bill will not restrict that.
	The issue of pharmacies is interesting, because there are many small local pharmacies. My village, Sacriston, in Country Durham, has a local pharmacy, and local pharmacies come to an arrangement on Christmas day opening that is published in the local newspaper. They cater for a specific local need on Christmas day, as people wish to get prescriptions or other medical supplies. I accept the point made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) about larger stores such as Boots, but they tend to be located mainly in out-of-town retail outlets or large shopping centres. I accept that under amendment No. 10 the trade or business carried out would be
	"wholly or mainly of the retail sale of medicinal products",
	but there would also be a call for pharmacies located in large supermarkets to be able to trade. They would ask, "Why are we treated differently just because someone who uses the pharmacy picks up a packet of crisps on the way?" In my local community, however, local pharmacies open and provide that essential service.

Eric Forth: I am puzzled about why the hon. Gentleman seems to be so resistant to any changes to his Bill. It is normal for the House to seek at one stage or another to amend Bills, for this or that reason, and it is perfectly normal for promoters to accept this or that amendment. He seems rigidly unwilling to accept amendments, however. He is not being leant on by the Government by any chance, is he? He is his own man, is he not?

Kevan Jones: The right hon. Gentleman does not know me very well if he makes that assertion. The point is that this is a simple Bill to close the loophole in the 1994 Act. I am trying to ensure that we do not make that difficult by opening up the Act, and creating problems. Some of the issues that have been raised require discussion, and we might need to revisit the 1994 Act on certain issues. That would require a wider Bill, however, than this small but well-crafted and concentrated one. We are in danger of straying on to a wider agenda.
	As for whether points that have been made today need to be addressed more broadly, I think that the answer is yes. Society has changed since the 1994 Act. Clearly, people's shopping habits and lifestyles are changing. I am not sure whether any Government or private Member's Bill would address that. Last time, a lot of controversy and heated debate was created. Clearly, there are many issues in relation to Sunday trading. I supported the Sunday Trading Bill when I was chairman of licensing on Newcastle city council, and, overall, it has worked. It took away the anomalies and expense with which local councils were left by the Shops Act 1950. I hope that this Bill, if it receives the House's support today, will close one small loophole that most Members who spoke on Second Reading, and who were Members of the House in 1994, thought that it covered anyway.
	I sympathise with the views of the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for East Yorkshire, and my attitude to the amendments is not one of resistance. We have had a good discussion on a range of issues, which may lead to their being discussed again at a later stage. That does credit to Members and the House. If something further comes out of today's debate, we shall have done a service not just to the House but to the quality of Sunday trading legislation generally.
	As I have said, I have some sympathy with the amendments, but because of practical difficulties that would arise from them I hope they will not be pressed.

Edward Leigh: I thought that one of the most interesting speeches was that of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who drew attention to the logical inconsistencies in both the 1994 Act and the Bill. He is right: there are only two entirely logical, neat solutions. Either we adopt a wholly restrictive point of view and prevent any shops from trading, or we adopt a wholly liberal point of view and say that in a free society people should be allowed to do what they want.
	Unfortunately, when we deal with legislation we must deal with the art of the possible and with compromise—shoddy compromise. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is impossible to construct a Bill that is perfect in terms of its logical application. As a supporter of devolution and the devolution Acts, he knows that that legislation is not entirely logical. He is well acquainted with the West Lothian question—the fact that the Scots are allowed to vote on our legislation but we cannot vote on theirs. He supports that, because he believes in the general principle that Scottish people should be able to govern their own affairs.
	The 1994 Act is a similar shoddy compromise. It proclaims the principle that we should keep Sunday special. This Bill says that we should keep Christmas day special, but we are realistic. We cannot take an absolutist view, and therefore we must allow some exceptions. We must allow people to call into their local filling stations to fill their cars with petrol; in the days when trains ran—in most cases, they no longer do so—we had to allow people to go to railway shops.
	We were very weak in 1994 in the case of the exemption for off-licences, but that too was a shoddy compromise. For some people an off-licence is as essential a local commodity as the local filling station. I remind my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) that we allowed pharmacies to remain open because we recognised that people have medical needs, but we did not want to accept the principle that pharmacies could sell non-medical commodities.
	All this is just a compromise. I oppose the amendments because I think the aim is to move away from essential relaxations of the law allowing people to get around the country and buy essential medical supplies—to move the goal posts. Why toys, why books?
	To be fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, I should say that he made one good point. Everyone laughed at him when he asked what would happen if the presents were stolen on Christmas eve, but friends of mine were burgled on Christmas eve and the burglar took all the presents that were under the tree. However, it is possible to devise any number of scenarios in favour of being able to shop on Christmas day. If we accept these amendments—starting with books, then exempting toys and who knows what else—we shall have no legislation left at all. We might as well scrap the 1994 Act and the Bill, and have a free-for-all.

Eric Forth: That may well have been the hidden wish of some of us, but if my hon. Friend shares my view that the intoxicating liquor exemption was somewhat odd and anomalous in 1994 and remains so, was he never even slightly tempted to try to amend the Bill to eliminate that exemption for the purposes of Christmas day?

Edward Leigh: No, because I hope that I am a politician who recognises political realities. It simply would not be politically realistic to try to get an amendment through the House that would remove that exemption. In any event, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) has made the point perfectly well that if he is to have any chance of getting his Bill through, he has to make it as simple as possible. It has to be introduced on the back of the 1994 legislation, and if he were to try to create a separate structure that was in any way different from that legislation, he would never get it through the House. One thing that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has achieved is to ensure that hon. Members who introduce legislation nowadays come to the House with very modest and restricted Bills because they realise that, if they try to make them wider and to create new principles—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the amendments.

Edward Leigh: Of course I accept that injunction. I was simply trying to answer the question that my right hon. Friend had put to me. Incidentally, I would welcome a visit from him bearing gifts on Christmas day, especially if he were dressed as Santa Claus.
	If the amendments were to be passed, starting with toys and books, it would create a new structure for the Bill that would be totally different from the 1994 legislation. That would drive a cart and horse—or perhaps a sleigh and reindeer—through the Bill and create something totally different from what the hon. Member for North Durham wants to achieve. I therefore oppose the amendments.

Christopher Chope: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is right in recognising that this is an illogical Bill and that it comprises lots of shoddy compromises. The amendments try to make it less illogical and less shoddy. I particularly ask the promoter of the Bill to consider amendment No. 10, which relates to registered pharmacies
	"where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of the retail sale of medicinal products and medicinal and surgical appliances."
	The argument against that is that there is no point in having a large shop of more than 3,000 sq ft to provide those services. If that argument is correct, the existing exemption, which covers only registered pharmacies, would be meaningless. That would mean that the promoter of the Bill recognised that it would be impossible to have a registered pharmacy of some 3,000 sq ft, and if he recognised that, why should that exemption be transposed anyway? Surely it would make more sense, if we recognise the importance of access to pharmacies on Christmas day and other days, that those pharmacies that can be included can be of any size, provided that the trade or business that they carry on
	"consists wholly or mainly of the retail sale of medicinal products and medicinal and surgical appliances."
	Amendment No. 6, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), is one that I find attractive. It relates to the sale of books, and as he said, there is now an increasing number of specialist bookshops, and that can have the effect of exciting readers, young and old, and giving them the idea of picking up a book and reading it. Let us couple that with the fact that many people give book tokens as Christmas presents. When can those book tokens be converted into real books? What could be better than for a father or mother to say to their child on Christmas day, after their auntie or granny has given them a book token, "Let's go off to the bookshop together, as a family, and choose some books." I am sure that even my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough would not find that suggestion unreasonable, anti-family or anti-Christian. Surely this is a sensible way of recognising the reality that, since the 1994 Act, much larger and more attractive specialist bookshops have opened. There is also an increasing national crisis in that a whole generation of people apparently do not want to read books for pleasure.

Ann Coffey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that such large bookshops, which serve excellent coffee, are exciting, but people can visit them 364 days a year. He paints a very nice picture of a family going together to the bookshop on Christmas day to spend the book token that they bought for their children, but what about the family of the employee who has to work in the bookshop on Christmas day?

Christopher Chope: The hon. Lady seems to be concerned only about the families of employees who work in large bookshops; she seems not to be concerned about the families of those who work in small ones. I am afraid that the more I listen to this debate, the more I realise that it is totally illogical to try to separate small bookshops from large ones, small pharmacies from large ones, and so on. However, that is what we are discussing today, and I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that, for the reasons that I have set out, it is sensible to treat large bookshops in the same way as small ones.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend will be aware that I had tabled an amendment that, sadly, could not be selected because it was not covered by the Bill's long title. The Bill cares so little about the protection of employees that its long title does not even allow for an amendment that sought to provide such protection.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is rightly critical of the Bill's promoter and sponsors, who were doubtless aided and abetted by Government Front Benchers who wanted to restrict the Bill's terms as much as possible. In effect, they wanted to do so to prevent us from dealing with matters of much greater concern—a lot of time has been available today to do so—and to address the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough made about all the legislation on this issue being an illogical and shoddy compromise.
	If we are concerned about reading habits, why can we not allow the big bookshops to open on Christmas day? We are not saying that they must open; we are simply trying to give them the option to do so. At the moment, the opportunity to browse in a large bookshop on Christmas day arises only if one is travelling by air. Frankly, where is the logic in allowing people to fly on Christmas day? Why can they not complete their journeys on an earlier or subsequent day? Why should they use our airports on such a day, given that many of our airports employ far more people than are employed in large shops? Why should such employees have to work on Christmas day?
	One can advance all sorts of arguments as to why Christmas day should be kept so special that nobody works at all, apart from priests and the emergency services, but that is not the position of the Bill's promoter and sponsors. They are saying that many other people should be able to work on Christmas day for various reasons, but for some reason that cannot include anybody working in a large bookshop. That ignores the importance of being able to excite those who have received book tokens as Christmas presents from members of their family into the habit of reading.
	It is surely in the national interest to allow large bookshops to open on Christmas day, and I hope that the Minister addresses that issue in his response. Perhaps it would also be in the national interest to close down all the television services, apart from those that produce the Queen's Message. Most families would accept that the presence of a television in the living room is more intrusive and destructive of a family gathering than anything else. So let us promote the family and promote education. Let us keep the bookshops open on Christmas day, and perhaps close down the television services.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am slightly worried about some of the responsibilities that would be placed on my shoulders were I to accept the amendments tabled by various Members. That said, we have had a good debate on some of the issues that needed to be examined.
	I shall deal with the various amendments quickly, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) has already dealt with them. On amendment No. 6, the list in question is an arbitrary one and we do not want to revisit it. We are being asked to add books to that list, and although we all want to raise standards and ensure that people become more literate, there are perhaps other ways of doing so than by opening bookshops on Christmas day. So for that reason, we do not want to add to the list.
	On amendment No. 7, people say that Christmas day is already over-commercialised and toys are not an essential item. We do not want to deprive children of their mums and dads who work in shops on Christmas day, if we can help it, so we are not inclined to support the amendment.
	In respect of amendment No. 8, we talked about bureaucracy earlier and I was chided on Second Reading and when we debated the money resolution for being over-bureaucratic in attempting to apply the Bill. However, there are no criteria for local need in the Bill and we want to avoid going down this route, which would create more problems.
	I am more concerned about amendment No. 10. I acknowledge the principle behind what the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) suggested. I do not accept the exact wording of the amendment, but I acknowledge the spirit of what the right hon. Gentleman said and want to reflect further on whether the Bill meets the criteria that he outlined.

Greg Knight: May I say that, thus far, the Minister has behaved in an exemplary manner? His attitude and approach should be a model for all Ministers. On the basis of his undertaking that he wants to achieve what amendment No. 10 is designed to achieve and will reflect further on the wording, I will not press my amendment.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful for that. We want to get the Bill right. I hope that, with that assurance, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will withdraw the amendment.

Eric Forth: It is always disappointing, when one tables amendments in good faith in order to seek to improve a Bill, to find that they do not gain support from any quarter of the House. In that case, far from seeking to test the will of the House—I do not propose to do so on this occasion—I will say merely that an opportunity has been missed here.
	It is all very well for everyone—the promoter, my hon. Friends, the Minister—to oppose the amendment, but what we have before us is very unsatisfactory. The provisions are full of anomalies and difficult to justify, yet we are supposed to give up the opportunity to put the Bill right. That is the gist of what has been said. I fully understand the rationale—I, of all people, could hardly disagree—that in order to keep the Bill tight and acceptable to the widest number of people, we should not put it at risk through amendments. In normal circumstances, I find that argument attractive and not a little tempting. On this occasion, having listened to the debate and gained an understanding of the House's intent—very much in the spirit of what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said—I shall withdraw the amendment in the hope that we may be able to return to some of the issues on a different occasion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Eric Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
	'(5)   In its application for the purposes of subsection (2), Schedule 3 to the 1994 Act (loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday morning) has effect as if the reference to Sunday were a reference to Christmas Day.'.
	This is another occasion on which I find it puzzling that a provision in the Sunday Trading Act 1994 has not been carried forward into the Bill. Given the intimate connection between the 1994 Act and the Bill, I would have hoped that the promoter would examine the positive and good features of the earlier Act to ensure that they were carried forward to the Bill in the spirit of bringing Christmas day into line with Sundays. I was very disappointed—I shall return to the point on Third Reading—that the opportunity was not taken to carry forward an element of proper protection for employees who do not wish to work on Christmas day, and to reflect it in both the short and the long title of the Bill. I mention that only in passing now, but I will raise the matter again on Third Reading.
	My amendment deals with a very precise measure in the 1994 Act, which could and should be carried forward into the Bill. It refers simply to loading and unloading at large shops on a Sunday morning, and I now wish to apply the same provision to Christmas day. Surely, to the extent that the acts of loading and unloading are viewed as undesirable on Sundays, they must be viewed as equally or even more undesirable on Christmas day. For the life of me, I cannot see why that provision is not incorporated in the Bill.

Greg Knight: Is it not the case that greater nuisance, annoyance, menace and disturbance are often caused to residents from loading, particularly from container lorries that service big shops, than from the act of trading from those shops?

Eric Forth: My right hon. Friend makes the point better than I had hitherto been able to, for which I am grateful. He is right, and that must be why the loading provision with reference to Sundays was included in the 1994 Act. From the varying experiences of our different constituencies, we all know that loading and unloading can be a source of great unhappiness and distress. It is an essential part of our modern life, and our retail trade is probably one of the most efficient in the world in its arrangements for supplying stores. How rare it is to see—if, indeed, one ever sees them these days—empty shelves in our stores large or small, and that is a great tribute to our systems of distribution. I pay tribute to all involved in the distribution business, but—it is a big but—there are considerable social considerations governing the hours and days of the year when that may be done.
	My challenge to the House is simple: it seemed sensible and desirable to include the loading provision in schedule 3 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994, and my amendment seeks simply to carry that provision forward into the Bill. If it is deemed undesirable that loading or unloading should take place on a Sunday, that must equally, or even more so, be the case on Christmas day.

Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. Friend address the point that if vehicles need to be loaded or unloaded outside large shops, employees in those shops must attend to deal with that event?

Eric Forth: Yes; my hon. Friend beats me to the point, for which I am grateful. That is self-evidently the case. We must not forget—I do not wish to be misunderstood here—that loading and unloading involves not only the driver of the vehicle and his or her assistants, but the employees of the receiving store, whatever size it may be, who must open the premises, who may have to assist with loading and unloading, and who must certainly receive the goods being delivered. If the point is not covered in the Bill, as my amendment seeks to ensure, there will be, at the very least, a risk—I put it no higher—that the employees of the distributing company, or of the distribution element of the retailing company, will be involved, and others, perforce, must also be.
	I do not want to belabour the point; it almost makes itself. I hope, therefore, that the Bill's promoter will see fit to recommend to the House that a measure included in the 1994 Act can and should be carried forward, through my amendment, to the Bill.

Julian Brazier: I should have made it clear earlier that I speak today in a personal capacity on a matter that has long been entirely a question of conscience in my party.
	I hope that the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), will be able to agree to the amendment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) spoke with considerable eloquence, and I am glad to support him. The amendment should come as no surprise to those on the Government Front Bench following Second Reading, when the argument was raised by several people, including me. Sympathetic noises were made at that time, and it seems an extraordinary anomaly that a little piece of the original legislation has been left out of the Bill.
	My right hon. Friend referred to the large numbers of employees involved in loading. I confess that although I am concerned about them, as the representative of a major regional shopping centre I am more concerned about people living immediately round those premises. I suspect that any large store would be able to find without any difficulty a small number of employees who would be happy to work on a Sunday.
	In my constituency—we sometimes have 15,000 people on the high street, which shows the scale of our shopping centre—there are substantial numbers of people, many elderly, who live close to our largest stores. I will mention one of them: my parish priest, who has completed 40 years in the priesthood and lives next to the largest store in Canterbury. He has not raised the issue with me but, in 1994 his curate pointed out the problems caused by unloading.
	As has been pointed out, loading can be a bigger problem for people living next to a store than shopping, with the sound of those wretched heavy lorries with their bleepers going off when they reverse, the sound of enormous doors being slid to and fro, and the banging and so on, sometimes very early in the morning. I do not see why on two days of the year—the other, of course, being Easter—people should not be exempted from that. Let me be clear: none of the department stores in Canterbury is a problem in that regard, but they all make the point that if one or two stores broke the line, it would put the others at a competitive disadvantage. There was sympathy for that view on Second Reading.
	The promoter of the Bill has steered it through the House extremely skilfully, and his interchanges with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst have become more and more touching at every stage, revealing sides that one hardly knew were there. This is an excellent amendment. Everyone understands why it is needed and I hope that both the hon. Gentleman and the Government will support it.

Greg Knight: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I have had some differences this morning, but we have now reached agreement. I accept the force of his arguments. The original restriction in the Sunday trading legislation applies to any large shop, and prohibits loading or unloading before 9 am on a Sunday unless consent has been sought from the local authority. I would have gone further than my right hon. Friend. I think there should be no loading, full stop—not just early loading—on Christmas day.
	Luckily, I do not live near a large store, but a few years back I was taking part in a classic car rally and made the mistake of booking into a hotel adjoining the car park and loading bay of a large store. I was rudely woken up at 7 am by two delivery employees who bore more than a passing resemblance—certainly in how they behaved—to the screen comics Laurel and Hardy, in that they seemed to take great delight in throwing around metal pallets and anything that would make a noise to create disturbance. [Interruption.] I hear someone saying, sotto voce, that they must have known I was there.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had not heard that comment. I wish it had not been uttered.

Greg Knight: I do not think that those involved knew that I was staying at the hotel. What happened brought home to me the unnecessary intrusion that many people who live near to such supermarkets must suffer in what is supposed to be their private home life. Although they must often bite their lip and live with such activities during the week, I think that they could do without such a nuisance on Sundays and on Christmas day.
	If the Minister is unable or unwilling to accept the amendment today, I hope that he will do what he did in respect of amendment No. 10, which I tabled—recognise that an issue needs to be addressed and undertake to look at the matter and amend the Bill during the remainder of its passage.

Eric Forth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the rather unusual schedule for private Members' legislation this year—the final day for considering it in the Commons is 15 October—presents us with an opportunity? If the promoter or the Minister is unwilling to accept the amendment, there would be an opportunity for them to seek to amend the Bill in the Lords, after which it could comfortably return to this House by 15 October for us to deal with the matter then. Unusually, that opportunity exists; indeed, I understand that that is one of the reasons why the Government schedule private Members' Bills to run so late in the year.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing out to the House the opportunities that exist for making such an amendment. I do not mind how the Minister does it, but I hope that he will do something to alleviate the problems and nuisance that this loophole will undoubtedly cause.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) summed up the effects of unloading and deliveries on those who live close to large out-of-town retail outlets. The disturbance will often occur at very unsocial hours. Such problems are bad enough for people who live in city centres, but many people who live in what used to be semi-rural areas are now suffering the effects of early morning deliveries, and I sympathise with them. I also sympathise with the amendment, because the main thrust of my Bill is to keep that one day of the year, Christmas day, special not only for shop workers, but for people's enjoyment. Peace and quiet on a Christmas day should be a right.
	I am told that the drafting of the amendment means that is it not technically possible for it to achieve what it seeks to do, so I ask the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to seek leave to withdraw it. The only fear that I have—although I accept the remarks of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), who has more experience of such matters—is that if the Bill goes to the other place in that way, it will run out of legislative time. If we have full co-operation in all parts of the House, it should not be beyond our wit to come up with something that could meet aspirations that I would sympathise with, as would all Labour Members.

Christopher Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if an amendment were carried in the other place, it would be the first business when the Bill returned to this House on 15 October, because Lords amendments will take priority over everything else?

Kevan Jones: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my main interest is to get the Bill through. With active co-operation from Opposition Members, I think that such a process would be a way forward. I know from the comments that have been made by Opposition Members that the Bill has their support and sympathy, as well as that of Labour Members. If we can come up with a proposal, I would hope to see a way forward. However, it would be sad if the Bill were to fall on one technicality. The active support and co-operation of all hon. Members would be needed.

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The promoter of the Bill has made a number of fair comments about his concern that if the Bill is amended in the way in which I think all hon. Members wish it to be amended, it may fall. The Minister has a team with him, although I know that we are not supposed to see them. Would you be prepared to accept a manuscript amendment on this matter, so that it can be dealt with today?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would want to hear from the Minister before I adjudicated on such a question.

Gerry Sutcliffe: We do have a difficulty, which has been identified. I want to meet the spirit of the amendment, but it is technically deficient and would not achieve what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) wants it to achieve. I am also aware of what my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) said about the procedural situation. Amendment No. 10 is different because it can be covered in guidance. Amendment No. 5, however, is about prohibition and would need to be on the face on the Bill. I am sympathetic to the amendment and look to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for guidance on how we can get round the problem. I am prepared to consider the amendment, but I do not want to commit to a course of action that would cause us to lose the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is the general will of the House to overcome what might otherwise be seen as a technical difficulty, the Chair is prepared to accept a manuscript amendment, but it will have to be presented very quickly indeed if it is to be dealt with in an orderly manner before the House moves to Third Reading.

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to your ruling, would the answer be for the House to adjourn for 15 minutes so that those involved with the Bill can draft the manuscript amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I do not think that I can afford to prejudice the laid down business of the House by an adjournment of that kind. Some swift action has to be taken. I am sure that it is not beyond the ingenuity of right hon. and hon. Members to allow a few moments for further consideration of the matter while appropriate wording is formulated.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be very helpful if the Minister gave us an idea of the extent of the variation in the wording that would be required to bring it into order in a way that he would find acceptable. If my wording needs to be altered only very slightly, rather than more radically, that could be done quickly in the form of a manuscript amendment. We look to the Minister for guidance on whether my amendment can be manually tweaked and laid before the House.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Members for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) held ministerial positions under the previous Government and know that officials become jittery when Ministers try to accommodate the will of the House on the hoof at the Dispatch Box. Officials want to ensure that we meet the requirements of parliamentary counsel. The difficulty is that tweaking the words may seem appropriate to us, but may not be helpful for parliamentary counsel. I understand that information is being checked with parliamentary counsel. Although I accept the spirit of what we are all trying to achieve, it would be wrong of me to undertake to alter words without the support of legal and parliamentary counsel.

Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Minister sat down now, would it be possible for him to get leave to speak again if, in the intervening period, other people who wish to speak in the debate were to do so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That would be a matter for the House. I think that I should refine my earlier ruling. In making it, I was not aware of exactly how procedurally easy and technically correct it would be to identify the correct wording. There will be a further opportunity, if a formulation can be found, for an amendment to be introduced in another place if there is a clear indication that the Minister intends to respond to the wishes of the House in that respect. It would not be appropriate for me to hold up the business of the House to facilitate something that cannot be done very quickly and in a way that satisfies all the tests that legislation should pass. This is not the absolute last-ditch time that we can put right a matter that the House wants to see effected in the Bill.

Greg Knight: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No doubt the whole House is grateful for your ruling. If my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) catches your eye and speaks for a few minutes when the Minister finishes his remarks—he may have already finished; I am not certain—perhaps the Minister could take that opportunity to find out whether the manuscript amendment is in order. In that way, we may still be able to dispose of the matter today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has said that he would like to be satisfied that he has the clearance of parliamentary counsel and his advisers before he commends a particular wording to the House, even though there is a general intent to get it right. It is important that it is technically correct, so that the legislation is not in any way defective. As I have told the right hon. Gentleman and the House, if there is the will, there is another way that would be effective in achieving that without detriment to the legislation.

Greg Knight: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without wishing in any way to challenge what you have said, it would be helpful to know whether the Minister is seeking to contact parliamentary counsel now, or whether that is impossible. If that is happening at the moment, some hon. Members would wish to continue our debate for a short period while inquiries are taking place. If they cannot take place now, it would be helpful to know that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. So that we may be clear, I did not accept that the Minister had finally concluded his speech. He still has the floor, and if he wishes to resume his speech to clarify any further points, I call upon him to do so.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I apologise but, in the spirit of what we are all trying to achieve, it will not be possible to get the clearance and cover that I seek in the available time scale. I prefer the route via the other place that you suggested, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the caveat about not losing the Bill. I certainly want to reflect the spirit of hon. Members' suggestions in any subsequent amendment, and urge the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to withdraw his amendment on that basis.

Eric Forth: I am grateful both to the hon. Member for North Durham and to the Minister for their extremely positive approach, which is a good example of the proper use of procedures for the scrutiny and consideration of Bills. It has emerged that my modest amendment has support on both sides of the House, and the general will is that it should be pursued. I do not wish in any way to jeopardise the Bill at this stage, and in that spirit, I join the Minister in hoping that he and the hon. Member for North Durham will find a way of accepting in the House of Lords an amendment of the nature that we have discussed and broadly agreed, on the understanding, if my procedures are correct—that is not always the case—that such an amendment could come back to the House of Commons, either on 16 July or on 15 October. Unusually, we have more time then than we have had in previous years.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I want to be absolutely clear about what we are doing. If he is right about the procedure, and that can be done, there is no problem as far as I am concerned. However, if it cannot be done, we need to deal with the matter appropriately.

Eric Forth: The Minister is a man of integrity, and I very much accept the spirit and letter of what he has said. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Kevan Jones: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I pay tribute to everyone who took part in the debate on Report, which was very good and well natured. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, we have tried to improve the Bill, and with Members' good will it will, I hope, complete Third Reading and become law in another place. I am pleased that it has reached this stage, and I pay tribute to hon. Members who contributed to Second Reading and served on the Standing Committee. I thank the Bill's sponsors, including the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby). I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who piloted a similar Bill in the last Parliament. However, that Bill ran out of parliamentary time, and she put a lot of time and effort into achieving the aims in my Bill.
	I thank my friend, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) for his support, and also my hon. Friend the Members for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), who worked hard on the Bill and has worked closely over a number of years for the rights and interests of shop workers. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) for their sponsorship of the Bill.
	On Second Reading and on Report, we heard that the Bill was about protecting shop workers. That is correct. It will help 2.6 million shop workers in Britain to keep one day of the year special for themselves and their families. The Bill has also been supported by Church groups and others and by the general public. The number of letters that I have received from members of the public saying that the Bill seems a sensible way forward shows that it has universal support across the country.
	I pay tribute to USDAW, the shop workers' union, for its campaign, and particularly to Sir Bill Connor, the retiring general secretary, who has worked tirelessly to promote the Bill and the interests of shop workers over many years. Through his active participation in his union and the trade union movement generally, he has ensured that working conditions for shop workers are better than when he joined the union as a young official.

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is entirely accurate when he describes the good work done by USDAW. When I introduced my private Member's Bill this time last year to afford protection to shop workers in Scotland, I found USDAW to be an extremely effective campaigner on behalf of its members, which is not true of all trade unions.

Kevan Jones: I concur with the first part of those remarks, but as a former full-time official of the GMB, I cannot concur with my hon. Friend's remarks about other trade unions.
	I pay tribute to the Keep Sunday Special campaign, which has worked to promote the Bill. Its work has widespread support. The Bill also received wide support in the House. Early-day motion 327, which I tabled in December last year, had support across the House. Both on Second Reading and in the debate today we saw that although hon. Members may support the Bill for different reasons, it has cross-party support, irrespective of political differences—for example, it has the support of our libertarian friend the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I know that he is often criticised for being destructive and he was vociferously attacked by a fellow Opposition Member on Second Reading, but he has been extremely constructive as regards the Bill and the amendments that he moved today will improve it.
	The Bill will stop the domino effect that would have occurred among large shops. Once one large shop opened on Christmas day, market pressures would have forced others to follow. It is interesting that in the consultation that took place, the Bill was supported not only by trade unions, religious groups and the public, but by major retailers, which do not want to be forced into making Christmas day just another trading day. Although the debate today on ethnic minorities was important, it is also important to remember that during the consultation there were no major objections to the Bill as framed.
	As I said on Second Reading, the Bill is supported by Mr. David Rae, the chief executive of the Association of Convenience Stores. If it becomes law, it will assist some of the small corner shops and convenience stores that are so vital to many communities. I always describe my constituency as rural with urban problems, and many of the convenience stores in the small villages in North Durham are the life and soul of those communities, so it is important to support them. They meet a social need that will not be affected by the Bill, which will help them in trading on Christmas day.
	The wider debate, which has been touched on but is perhaps for another day, is about whether the Sunday Trading Act 1994 needs to be reconsidered. Given that we are nearly 10 years on, perhaps that needs to be done, but it would have been ambitious, to say the least, to take my private Member's Bill into the minefield that surrounded that Bill in 1994. However, the Government need to consider ensuring that we have a structure and laws that people want and that cater for local needs.
	In conclusion, I thank again all hon. Members who support the Bill and have taken part in today's debates and Second Reading. The Bill has cross-party support and widespread support in the country. I also pay tribute to the Minister for playing a vital role in ensuring the Bill's passage through the House. He has not taken the rigid view that Ministers or officials sometimes take. He has tried to reach the necessary compromises. I apologise to his officials if I have been a bit abrupt with them on occasion. I hope that, with the amendments and good will that have been apparent today, we can ensure that the Bill becomes law when it returns from the other place.

Gerald Howarth: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), with whom I have had the pleasure of serving for two years on the Defence Committee, for introducing the Bill with cross-party support. I am delighted to support the Bill; I believe it to be important. I recognise that there is an element of the handout in the nature of the Bill—it enjoys the support of the Government—but there is no harm in that; it ensures that something that most hon. Members agree is an important measure will be placed on the statute book. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and others on the work that they have done in bringing it to this point.
	As the hon. Gentleman rightly said a few moments ago, the Bill has been introduced not just for the benefit of shop workers, although that is an important consideration in itself. There is no doubt that shop workers, even if they have the protection of the law, nevertheless feel that if they say that they will not work on Christmas day, just as perhaps some say that they will not work on Sundays, they will be discriminated against in an imperceptible fashion. That would be most unfortunate. The Bill will serve to give them that protection.
	As the hon. Gentleman also said, however, the Bill will proceed to the statute book with the support of the major retailers. One might argue that it is a shame that they feel the necessity to have the force of law to protect them from themselves or, indeed, from the venal nature of their customers. Nevertheless, the support of major retailers and, indeed, widespread public support for the Bill is another reason for accepting it.
	The Bill also benefits the country because it reinforces the special nature of Christmas day in this country. Easter and Christmas are our two great Christian festivals. Anything that detracts from their observance detracts from the integrity of our country. Freedom of religion in this country separates us from many other countries. My brother-in-law and sister-in-law worked in the middle east and the same ability to follow one's religion as Muslims find here does not exist in Muslim countries. That is because Christianity is an especially tolerant religion.
	However, it is important to send a clear message that this is a Christian country not only because Christianity is a tolerant religion but because it is the basis on which the country has been moulded. It is the basis for all the laws that we pass. The Christian code of conduct—the ten commandments—is probably the best summary of how to live one's life. All our legislation should be based on the Christian code, which has forged the nation over the years. There is no doubt that it is under threat.
	I do not go to church every Sunday but when I drive there I see the new religion expressing itself in a variety of forms, not least the car boot sale. Thousands of people go to car boot sales every Sunday. If they do not do that, they are often on the football pitch. I believe that people should be entitled to do what they want in this country—I am a high Tory, not a libertarian. However, I believe that it is important to ensure that the Christian nature of this country is reinforced, not diminished. The Bill conveys that clear message and also protects shop workers.
	For what purpose does the Bill protect shop workers? It protects them for the purpose that we, as Christians, believe to be necessary: to enable them to be with their families. We accept that not all members of the emergency services can be with their families but we must ensure that we make it easier for people to spend Christmas day with their families. The Bill will secure that.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I know that he shares my convictions and I congratulate him on the part that he has played in supporting the measure not only from the Opposition Front Bench but in multifarious ways, to ensure that we do all that we can to preserve the nuclear family as the building block of our society. I commend the Bill to the House.

Colin Pickthall: I begin by declaring an interest in that I have been a member of USDAW for a long time. I shall make a couple of brief points. The Bill deals with working people in businesses that do not need to be open on Christmas day. We fully understand that some workers, such as members of the emergency services, have to work on Christmas day. We also understand that some people choose to work on Christmas day, especially those in small retail outlets that serve immediate neighbourhoods—garages and so on.
	However, not only do the large stores not need to be open on Christmas day but they do not wish to do so. The only large retailer that would make some extra profit would be the first one to open on Christmas day. The following Christmas day, all the other stores would be open as well, so each would then take only a proportionate share of its usual customer spend on that particular day—spend that would otherwise have been taken on Christmas eve or Boxing day.

Kevin Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that when the consultation was done, it was the fear of the domino effect that concerned most retailers? Most did not want to open on Christmas day but thought that if their opposition were opening on Christmas day, they would have to. I do not know whether my hon. Friend will agree, but this literally comes down to the suggestion, "For Christ's sake, have a day off!"

Colin Pickthall: I should not have put it quite like that, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is a relentless process of follow my leader in the supermarket business, in which all the supermarkets are inescapably locked. None of them dares to step an inch out of line for fear of losing an inch of market share, and the workers are simply dragged along in the slipstream unless we are careful to protect them. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) summed up the point extremely well when he said that the retailers seemed to be saying to us, "We do not want to open, so please legislate to prevent us from opening."
	Of course, this debate is essentially about protecting retail workers for one day a year—just one day, the day when, as has been said over and over again, most families want to be together to celebrate, relax and have a good time. That seems to be a modest thing for us to ask and to legislate on. Just to illustrate that point, I came across a comment by Sylvia Bew, an USDAW member in London who works for Sainsbury's, in an USDAW document on the subject. She pointed out that last Christmas Sainsbury's decided to open some of its London stores but did not announce that decision to its workers until Christmas eve. It is hard to imagine anything more disruptive to a worker's life, or more callous, but it is the inevitable result of a firm's trying to steal a march on the follow-my-leader structure that I described a moment ago—something, however, that they can do only once. It is the inexorability of that process that the Bill is trying to end.
	I finish by heartily congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on the immense amount of clever work that he has done on the Bill over many months. That has been a fine example of how to pursue a private Member's Bill, and not only my union but his will be very proud of him.

Malcolm Bruce: It is interesting that employees and major traders support the thrust of the Bill. Of course, the very fact that major traders want the Bill shows that there are people who would like larger shops to be open on Christmas day, so I wonder whether, in the end, it will slow, rather than stop, the process. As I have said in interventions, there are anomalies about the things that we think that people can and cannot do on Christmas day. We cannot protect catering workers on Christmas day, for example, because many people want to go out to hotels or restaurants for their Christmas dinner or lunch, and no one is suggesting that those workers should have their right to be at home with their family protected. We are taking an arbitrary view that shopping is something that should not happen on Christmas day, while many other activities may go on.
	I am not against that, and I understand the reasoning behind it. I have already said that I share the view that Christmas day is, and should be, special. I simply make the observation that I suspect that in a few years' time there will be pressure on the House to introduce more liberal trading laws for Christmas day. I am not sure that the House can stop that process indefinitely, although clearly, after consultation, there is a mood at this time to preserve the current status of Christmas day and the existing role of large traders. Were traders to take a different view, and begin to want to open on Sundays, considerable pressure would be brought to bear on Members to change the law.
	At the moment, traders seem to make the simple analysis that because there is only so much trade to be had, opening on Christmas day and having to pay extra rates would not increase the total amount of trade, so if they all agree, or if legislation requires them all to agree, they can protect the status quo. I give as an example the independent line that John Lewis took on Mondays. To give its partners a two-day weekend, albeit not at the weekend, John Lewis maintained Sunday and Monday closing for many years. In recent years, the forces of competition have increasingly put pressure on it to open on a Monday, and I am not sure whether any John Lewis store still closes on a Monday. I know for a fact that only in the past year or two has the store in Aberdeen yielded, which demonstrates the pressures.
	This is an English Bill and, as a Scottish Member, it is not my job to oppose or resist it; I simply make a contribution to the debate. The Scottish Parliament is considering a similar Bill, and this debate will help to inform it. If the Bill proceeds in Scotland, I hope that the debate on the previous amendment on loading, and the difficulties in that regard, will assist the legislative process. Clearly, the issue is not different north and south of the border.
	I accept that it is an ironic unintended consequence that the recent divergence that has developed between the position in England and Scotland is as a result of an anomalous situation—Scotland, having a much tighter observance in the past, did not have the legislation. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) rightly pointed out, however, Christmas was not celebrated vigorously in the Presbyterian tradition, although I can testify that Christmas day is now celebrated in Scotland every bit as enthusiastically as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
	There are real issues of debate. I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but when we pass legislation we should recognise that it is a compromise—not a very tidy one—and that many of the issues behind it will not go away. It is right to keep the issue simple and in line with Sunday trading. Clearly, as the Bill operates on that basis, it has widespread acceptance, and deserves to get the support of both Houses. Therefore, in spite of my reservations I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on his Bill, and wish him well. I know that he has the enthusiastic support of many of my colleagues.

Linda Gilroy: Having been present for the Second Reading debate but unable to make a contribution, I want to make a brief one now. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) for all the work that he has done to bring the Bill to this stage, and for keeping those of us who have been keen to support it briefed throughout.
	There are probably several thousand shop workers in most of our constituencies. In city centres such as Plymouth, there are probably more than the average. It is not surprising, therefore, that I and others have had hundreds of letters in support of the Bill from shop workers, who are particularly affected, but not solely from them—as others have said, a much broader range of people have also written. In particular, I want to pay tribute to USDAW, which is an active and lively union, not just on this issue but, particularly at the moment, on the "Freedom from Fear" campaign, which most Members support. The district officer, John Crick, has enabled me to have good-quality contact with his shop workers in relation both to that and to this Bill and what has led up to it.
	There are also those who want to keep Christmas special, either for a religious or other motive. I was reminded just now, when the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) spoke, of when I moved down to England from Scotland. It is true that Christmas day celebrations in Scotland were much more low key. Having responsibility for a small office in Plymouth back in 1979, I had not been used to the big build-up to Christmas. I was sitting there at 3 or 4 o'clock on Christmas eve, and my small staff of about five were beginning to get restive. It was my first Christmas there, but I learned very quickly that the staff were used to being allowed to leave early. Around us, all the celebrations in the city centre were beginning. In the many subsequent years during which I had the pleasure of working there, I was wise to the fact that Christmas had a special place for people, irrespective of whether their backgrounds were religious.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham mentioned the domino effect and the follow-my-leader effect. We should also bear in mind the commercial pressures that can arise from just one or two people breaking ranks, and the fear that that could drive a coach and horses through the wishes of the many.
	I am glad to have been present for much of the debate, and I hope the spirit that has pervaded it will continue in the other place. I hope that the Bill will have a smooth passage, and that those of us who have played a small part in it—and my hon. Friend, who has played a significant part—will be able to feel when we enjoy Christmas in the future that those Christmas days are still special because of what we have been able to do today and on other occasions.

Christopher Chope: I share the pessimism of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). I do not think that this is a great event for those of us who are Christians and want to keep Christmas day special. Ten years ago people thought that it would be kept special by convention, without the need for legislative intervention—just as we expected Good Friday to be kept special as a Christian festival. As the Department of Trade and Industry's consultation paper made clear, what was envisaged 10 years ago has not come about. A dam is being placed in the stream to prevent Christmas day from being completely wrecked by the opening of large shops, but I do not share the enthusiasm of those—perhaps including my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)—who think that this is a red-letter day for those of us who want to keep Christmas festivals in this country special.
	An early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) calls for legislation to
	"protect Christians from being compelled to engage in commercial activities on Good Friday and Christmas Day."
	Relatively few Members have signed it. What could be described as an irreligious early-day motion tabled by the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), which refers not to Christianity but to the convenience of shop workers, has received much more support.
	I do not think that those of us who want to maintain the traditions of a Christian country have anything to celebrate. We should reflect on the fact that it has been estimated that more than 800,000 people regularly work on Christmas day. More small shops are opening on Christmas day, fewer aspects of the day are treated as being special, and an increasing amount of commercial activity is taking place. Although I shall support Third Reading, I do not believe that the Bill will succeed in fighting the tide and preventing the undermining of our Christian society. I feel sad about that prospect, but it is hardly surprising, given that the census shows a rising proportion of people who do not profess to be Christians or who adhere to another religion.
	Those of us who want to keep Christmas day special and maintain Christianity at the core of our cultural heritage will have to do a lot more in our everyday actions and encourage others to do the same, rather than trying to defend the current position with late legislation. The Bill has major limitations, although I suppose that in the overall context it is better than nothing.

Dari Taylor: I rise to support the Bill with considerable gusto. I want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) that, in my constituency, he gets wholehearted support. I have not received one letter that in any way objects to his Bill, but I have had a bucketful that say, "Get in there, Dari, and support him." So I am more than pleased to be here today and to have this opportunity to speak.
	I am much more of an optimistic Christian than the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I believe that the Bill is a sign of the times, and I do not say that with ease. Profit, rather than people, has become far too great a focus in our lives, and the Bill registers clearly how important it is for those of us who are Christians that Christmas day should be a special day. There should be many special days on which we are allowed to enjoy our religion and share our religious practices with others.
	I have two reasons for supporting the Bill, apart from the views expressed by my constituents, whose serious support I have witnessed in a great deal of correspondence. The first, which I have already mentioned, is that I am a Christian. I always want to maintain special days in the year on which my family and I have an opportunity to celebrate together, and I want such opportunities to be available to all people. We are attempting to achieve that today. The celebrations are about giving, and often about picking up a phone, and having the time to do that. On Christmas day, I phone many people and I have virtually a 100 per cent. success rate. They are nearly all at home, and I am pleased to speak to them. I have time to do that, and so do they. That is an important moment for me and my family, and I hope that it is for others. I also hope that that will be the case for more and more people who do not at present share my Christian beliefs. I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham that the letters that I have received have not all come from Christians. In fact, many have come from people who are not Christians, but who have said that they enjoy British Christian traditions and being part of the festivities.
	My second reason for supporting the Bill is that I am a very principled trade unionist. I have been one all my working life and I shall always maintain that position. It is crucial that we understand that many people are coerced into working in these circumstances. Heavy-handed persuasion is often used, and veiled threats are invariably made to people who are not prepared to comply with their employer's requests. Employers have a job to do; I do not deny that. I know, however, having worked with trade unions for many years, that people feel that their non-compliance will impact on their working lives. So it is also as a principled trade unionist that I stand here today. To USDAW, I say loud and clear: "Well done! You have run a very good campaign." I also want to thank my own trade union, the GMB, for the tremendous support it has given me.
	We in this House enjoy the right to choose what we do on Christmas day, and to choose how we behave at that time. That is an inviolable right, and it should exist for others too. The Bill—in a small way, no doubt—extends that right to them. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) described with some passion our British society as a Christian community. I totally applaud those sentiments. I was brought up in a Baptist home, and I have always lived in a Christian home. I live in a Christian society and I am incredibly proud of our Christian heritage.
	Sometimes I despair of some of the things that we do in the name of Christianity, but I believe that our country should always be prized as a Christian society, and that we should be prepared to defend it and to share it with others. I, of course, welcome the fact that people from around the world come to this country to live with us. I enjoy multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism, but for me the straight statement is that we are a predominantly Christian society. That should never be undermined, and we should never keep our lips sealed when we feel that we have something proud to say about our existing religious institutions.
	The hon. Member for Christchurch—if it was not you, it was the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight)—made great statements to the House today. I am very sorry; I feel ashamed that I cannot remember whether it definitely was you. You said that 29 per cent. of people in Great Britain claim that they are not Christian, or are of a different faith. I have to tell you that the other side of the coin—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady's peroration but she must remember to speak in the third person; otherwise, she is referring to me.

Dari Taylor: I accept your correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply pointing out that the other side of the coin is that more than 70 per cent. of people clearly want to be regarded as Christian and identified as such. We should never underestimate that fact.
	I wish the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham a swift and successful passage in the other place, and I believe that that will be achieved.

Helen Jones: I do not wish to detain the House for long. We have had a very interesting and good-natured debate, and I want to commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) in piloting this Bill through the House. It constitutes excellent use of private Members' legislation and enjoys widespread cross-party support in the House.
	This is probably the third occasion on which we have debated Christmas day trading, following the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who should also be commended for her work on this issue. My view has not changed throughout those debates, and I support this Bill for a number of reasons. First, it is right to extend to others the privilege that we ourselves enjoy of being at home with our families on Christmas day. I do not accept the view of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) that because we cannot extend that privilege to everyone, we should not seek to extend it to anyone. That is not an argument in respect of such legislation.
	I commend the excellent work that the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has done on this Bill, but we should also remember that many shop workers are not members of trade unions. They are often poorly paid women workers who, if this Bill is not enacted, will be put under tremendous pressure to work on Christmas day once stores start opening. The same situation arose with Sunday trading. The premiums started to disappear and the right to opt out was gradually eroded, and for that reason people get less and less time to spend with their families.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) referred to profit and people, and it is true that there has been too much emphasis in our society on commercial activities and too little on other worthwhile things, such as spending time with one's family. As I said when my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich introduced her Bill, a society that defines itself only by how it shops is a very poor society indeed. Some things are far more important, and preserving Christmas day is one of them—and not simply because it is a Christian festival, although that is the prime reason for doing so.
	To emphasise our own Christian heritage in no way denigrates that of other religions; indeed, to value other religions one must first value one's own. We should also preserve Christmas day because it is a day on which those who are not Christian can spend time at home with their families. It is a day on which to value those things that are more important than buying and selling. No one ever starved to death because large stores were closed on Christmas day, but families can very easily fall apart without the necessary time to spend with one another.
	This is an excellent Bill and I commend it to the House.

Shona McIsaac: I shall be very brief. I congratulate, as will the shop workers of Cleethorpes, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on steering the Bill through the House. There has been much detailed discussion today, but for me, the Bill is simple. When the Sunday Trading Bill became law, people believed that it covered Christmas day. However, there proved to be a loophole, because Christmas day was covered only if it fell on a Sunday. What we are trying to achieve today is simple—to close the loophole, deal with the anomaly and give people the right to spend Christmas with their families. Many hon. Members have eloquently articulated the argument today. I wish the Bill success in the other place and I hope that it becomes law as soon as possible.

Julian Brazier: The Bill is excellent and I congratulate its promoter, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), once again. We often hear platitudes about the House operating at its best on Fridays, but I genuinely believe that we have seen that happening today. Two useful and worthwhile concessions have been made to my right hon. Friends the Members for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
	The Bill does not protect retail workers alone; more importantly, it protects their families. Whatever one's religious inclination, Christmas day is a day for families—and family cohesion matters. Christmas day has a special place in the life of the nation. Remove it, as could easily happen if the opening of large stores became a widespread practice, and community cohesion would suffer. I make no apologies for supporting those hon. Members who pointed out that this is a predominantly Christian country—that is nothing to be ashamed of.
	I hope that you will indulge me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, while I cite a small story from history. When the Duke of Wellington arrived in Portugal with his army—one that was almost entirely Protestant-officered—he sent out a message to the officer corps, reminding them that they were in a Catholic country. He expected every officer to be punctilious in saluting religious processions as they passed in the streets. There is no reason why a Christian in a Muslim country cannot show respect for Muslim customs, and no reason has ever been put to me by any members of any minority faith in my constituency—I have some in my Conservative association—why they cannot support a measure such as this.
	Almost 10 per cent. of the work force—and almost 13 per cent. of women—work in the retail sector. I believe that that is one of the reasons why we have one of the highest proportions of people anywhere in the developed world who answer surveys saying that they work more hours than they would like. I am also convinced that that is one of the causes of family breakdown in this country. Our divorce rate is much higher—almost 50 per cent. higher—than the European average. Of course, this one small measure will not roll that back on its own. Nevertheless, as an old-fashioned Conservative, I believe that symbolism is important. By showing that we regard the two most important religious days of the year—Easter, which was covered in the 1994 Act, and Christmas, which we are dealing with today—as special, we are doing a real service to family life and the wider nation.
	I do not want to detain the House any longer, but I want to emphasise again how grateful I am for the concession that was made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. In major retailing shopping centres in Canterbury, the issue of loading and unloading—with all the noise that it brings with it, early in the morning—is a significant one for many of my constituents, particularly the elderly.
	It is a good Bill and we have had a good debate. Speaking in a personal capacity—this is a conscience issue for my party—I am delighted to support it from the Dispatch Box.

Andrew Dismore: I very much support the Bill, which may explain why I have taken a Trappist vow as it has passed through its various stages, rather than behaving as I usually do on Fridays in welcoming or opposing Bills at somewhat greater length than I shall now. I shall also speak briefly because of the other important business timetabled today, for which I have been waiting for some time. I have made good use of that time, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will shortly discover.
	Retail is one of the most important employers in my constituency. Brent Cross employs thousands of people, full time and part time. In addition, people from my constituency work in retail throughout London. They will be greatly pleased by the Bill's passage, and I do not mean only those who are Christians, because the Bill is a measure for every person of every faith who works in retail. It is important to respect Christmas day as the one day that is special to the whole country, no matter which faith people profess. The Bill is therefore important and I wish it all the best in its future passage through the other place.

Gerry Sutcliffe: As the Minister with responsibility for consumers, competition and employment, I welcome the Bill in every aspect. [Interruption.] As the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) suggests, it sometimes seems like I am the Minister for everything!
	This has been an excellent debate. I am beginning to be worried by the fact that I am coming to like Fridays, although I am sure that it will pass fairly quickly. Fridays give the House an opportunity, through the private Members' Bill process, to consider issues in detail, sometimes properly and sometimes, perhaps, with a bit of filibustering, though that was not so today.
	It was important to get the Bill right and to get it through the House. This was not the first attempt to put the Bill's provision on the statute book: my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) tried to do so, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), who, I am pleased to see, is in his place and who will be pleased to see the Bill achieving support on Third Reading.
	We must pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) for his work on the Bill. He has steered it excellently through negotiations with officials at my Department, and I am pleased that they have helped him to move it in the direction that he required. I have taken great pleasure in working with him on Second Reading and in Committee as we have tried to get it right.
	I acknowledge that the amendments debated this morning raised some areas for consideration, and hon. Members will note my assurance that we shall try to achieve what they asked for in the way that I set out earlier.

Greg Knight: The Minister should never say that he likes Fridays when he is in the presence of a Whip.
	Will the Minister do two things? He has handled the Bill very well, and he kindly indicated that the concession that he intends to make in respect of amendment No. 10 will be covered, he hopes, in guidance. Will he send me a copy of that guidance when it is finalised? Secondly, will he write to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and to me to let us know when he has made a decision on the loading problem?

Gerry Sutcliffe: Those are perfectly fair requests, and I undertake to do all that at the appropriate time.
	The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has been referred to. I have been pushing for a long time for unions to be modern and relevant to their workplaces. USDAW has achieved that in the way in which it has run its campaign on Christmas day trading. The Bill is not all about USDAW, however: it is about the nature of Christmas day and how we preserve it for the family by making it a special day of the year. The Bill goes a long way to doing that.
	The Bill applies to England and Wales but not to Scotland, where the Scottish Executive are considering the matter. Enforcement of prohibitions and other matters in the Act will be the same as for the 1994 Act and will be operated by local trading standards authorities.
	The Bill is necessary. We are often accused of regulation for regulation's sake, but that is not the case here. The domino effect was a real consideration; the retailers told us that if a competitor opened up, they would have to do the same, and they thought that regulation was appropriate.
	Further important Bills will follow this one, so I shall not detain the House much longer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham for his work. I accept that the Bill is not yet the perfect piece of legislation, but it is an attempt to try to put right a mistake that was made when Christmas day was included in the previous legislation only if it fell on a Sunday. I hope it passes through the other House with due speed, and I commend it to this House.

Eric Forth: I have said throughout the day that I would want to speak on Third Reading, and this is my big moment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if I did not immediately call his name, but as he had not given a previous indication in my hearing, I was slightly surprised. I would never seek to deny the right hon. Gentleman.

Eric Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I like to spring the occasional surprise, even on you.
	On Second Reading I said that I was not happy with the Bill. There was a rather half-hearted attempt by USDAW to get people to write to me. In the end about 30 did, and there were a couple of phone calls, one rather abusive. That made no difference to my views, and it did not say much for USDAW and its organising ability.
	I changed my mind for two reasons. First, I had a look at what happened in other countries that I regard as culturally comparable with ourselves—Canada and Australia, mainly. But the thing that incensed me and made me change my mind was an article in The Sunday Telegraph on 9 May that referred to a 99-page document published by the Commission for Racial Equality setting out draft guidance on how companies should prevent discrimination against religious and racial minorities. The most controversial proposal was that employers should have to provide prayer rooms and to give time off to non-Christians to mark their own religious holidays.
	That is what changed my mind about the Bill. Other speakers have mentioned this matter, but I will put my own very different interpretation on it. I am normally incensed by anything the CRE says, and the sooner we abolish it the better. However, the fact that it had the impertinence to say something like that convinced me that the Bill would be a small but significant symbol of the need to reassert the fact that this country is, and remains, essentially a Christian country. We have an established Church. Her Majesty is the head of that Church, as well as being our head of state. For the race relations industry to have the cheek to come forward with such a statement was an insult, and something that should be dealt with firmly. The Bill has provided us with the occasion to do something about it.
	Instead of seeking to oppose the Bill I shall support it with alacrity, for that reason. It is time we in this country put down a marker in defence of our culture and what is still our religion. That is not to say that we should not be perfectly tolerant of people with other views, or no views. Reference has been made to the census, which revealed that a significant proportion of people in this country now feel that they have no religious affiliation, or decline to say what their affiliation might be. We must respect them as well.
	None the less, it is important that in our institutions and, where necessary, in our legal framework, we assert, and reassert where necessary, where we believe this country should place itself in terms of its religious affiliations. That was the main reason that brought me, unusually—it is not something that I do often—to change my mind. I am happy to say that the Commission for Racial Equality has had that effect on me, and will be able to claim at least some of the credit for the fact that the Bill will make progress today. Good for the CRE; that is the only time you will ever hear me saying that.
	I have here a letter from the Minister for Industry and the Regions and Deputy Minister for Women and Equality—she is in her place now, and I welcome her to the debate. The letter, which she kindly wrote on 4 May, said:
	"There is no automatic entitlement for employees not to work on Christian holy days or on holy days of any other religion. This is a contractual matter between employees and their employers. However, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, which came into force in December last year, make it unlawful for employers to treat staff from a particular religious group less favourably than those from other religions when considering requests for leave, or requests to refrain from work on particular days."
	That is a very fair statement of the Government's position, but it sits slightly at odds with the tenor of this debate and of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister for Industry and the Regions and her colleague should have a quiet chat to see whose view will prevail. We have heard the Minister who has just spoken welcome the Bill, USDAW and all its works, and so on, while the Minister for Industry and the Regions took a slightly more neutral position. It seems that the Government are of two minds. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady is getting excited; she is welcome to intervene if she wants to elucidate—but, obviously, she does not want to emphasise her remarks in any way. I understand that.
	As I said, the other reason why I changed my mind on the Bill is what happens in other countries, but before I deal with that point I want to express again my disappointment that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) did not seek to include in the Bill any sort of explicit protection for workers to ensure that they were not forced to work on Christmas day. I sought to secure such protection in an amendment that I was advised could not be selected, simply because the long title of the Bill would not allow it. That is not an excuse. The long title of the Sunday Trading Act 1994 allowed schedule 4 to that Act to provide protection for workers who did not want to work on a Sunday. I am appalled that a Bill that is supported by a trade union—USDAW, no less—has such a restrictive long title that it cannot be amended to provide proper protection for workers on Christmas day.
	Frankly, that undercuts all the words of praise that have been said today about that union and all its works, and about the wonderful role that it has played in such matters. I think that it has been in gross dereliction of its duty not only to its members, but to workers at large. I was the one who sought to table an amendment to protect workers, but my amendment was denied because of the shoddy way in which the long title of the Bill had been drawn up. My praise for the hon. Gentleman is therefore somewhat tempered by the fact that he and the union have been in dereliction of what the latter normally regards as its duty to its members and workers at large.
	I make those remarks because I hope that somebody may want to return to the matter some day. If we are serious about all the words that have been said in the Chamber today about how special Christmas day is, the need to protect the workers and so on, why cannot we include in legislation a provision that seeks to give proper protection, as we did in the Sunday Trading Act 1994? That remains a mystery to me. I hope that it will be corrected one of these days.
	I have in my hands some information about the great province of Ontario in Canada. In Ontario, employees of most retail businesses generally have the right to refuse to work on a public holiday, and they do not have to give reasons for declining to work on a public holiday. Furthermore, employers in Ontario cannot punish such people for not working on those days. Such provision exists in other civilised parts of the world, and I would have thought that it should exist here. I regret that this opportunity to introduce such provision has passed us by.
	Although I support the Bill and wish it well, for the reasons that I have given, I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), hope that the Minister will be able to tell us in due course that he has been able to incorporate the amendments that the House has generally supported, particularly with regard to loading and unloading. I hope that he will ensure that that issue is dealt with in one way or another.
	All in all, I believe that the hon. Member for North Durham has done a service to our society and to its workers in introducing the Bill. Defective though it may be, I believe that it is good enough to have the support of the House today.

Kevan Jones: With the leave of the House, I thank hon. Members for their kind words. The debate has been good hearted, as it was on Second Reading. It will ensure that we make a small move towards protecting Christmas day for workers and making it the special family day that it is for people, irrespective of their religious beliefs.
	I note with interest the point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth); he is obviously a loss to the trade union movement. It seems that in selecting the subject for a private Member's Bill and in achieving the consensus to get it to this stage, the more limited the scope, the more chance it has of succeeding. For that reason, I concur with some of his points.
	Today's amendments were sensible and passionately argued. I am glad that we can improve the Bill, which is important. I thank all hon. Members who supported it and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to make my small contribution to the legislative programme.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY) BILL

Order for consideration read.
	To be considered on Friday 15 October.

Sex Discrimination (Clubs and Other Private Associations) Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Discrimination: Private Clubs

Eric Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 35, at end insert—
	   '29E   Unreasonable works and alterations
	   Nothing in the provisions of sections 29Ato 29D requires unreasonable works or alterations to be carried out on existing buildings.'.
	The Bill is well meaning but controversial. Following Second Reading, which was some time ago, I took the opportunity—indeed, the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), almost invited me to do so—to contact some of the primary organisations representing private clubs to find out their views. Those contributions were very helpful. He mentioned the Royal and Ancient golf club of St. Andrews. In fairness to him, he was honest with the House in saying that it was unhappy with the Bill. I contacted the club, which had much to say.
	I am sure that we will have the chance to return another day to many of the other issues that the Bill raises, because my modest amendment covers only a very small part of the Bill. Sadly, we have only 17 minutes or so to go, and I suspect that we will not get much past this amendment—or, indeed, past it at all. Happily, that will enable us to consider the Bill further and in more detail another time, when we can try to address other aspects of it.
	The Royal and Ancient had something to say about the one part of the Bill that my amendment attempts to highlight. Indeed, it picked up on something that we had spotted on Second Reading. That is covered by proposed new sections 29B, 29C and 29D of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The Royal and Ancient says:
	"The layout of clubhouse buildings at many golf clubs is a further, significant difficulty. Considerable capital expenditure will be required in many cases to convert clubhouses to dual-sex use throughout. Again, given the poor financial condition of many clubs, the R and A believes that this also makes it desirable for provisions enabling gradual transition to be incorporated into your bill."
	We can return to the issue of transition on a future occasion, but we need to zero in on the difficult question of capital expenditure and the Bill's effect on clubs. So that we can orientate ourselves, proposed new section 29B is entitled, "Guests: discrimination by mixed-sex clubs" and says:
	"It is unlawful for an association to which section 29A applies to discriminate against a woman on an occasion when she is its guest—
	(a) in the way in which it affords her access to any of the benefits, facilities or services to which other guests are afforded access by it on that or a comparable occasion,
	(b) by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford her access to any of those benefits, facilities or services, or
	(c) by subjecting her to any other detriment."
	That has confused some people, including some of the club organisers to whom I wrote. I am advised that when the Bill refers to a woman it also means a man. As we discovered on Second Reading, when I tabled a number of amendments to clarify the issue, provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act stipulate that when legislation refers to a woman it also means a man and vice versa. That is the even-handed and non-discriminatory approach one would expect of such legislation, and it clarifies the position in the Bill.

Jacqui Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that references to "he" and "man" in every other piece of legislation are also references to "she" and "woman"?

Eric Forth: In the modern world of gender neutrality, equality and all the rest one would expect to take that for granted. However, the club organisers whom I contacted suggested that the Bill appears to be obsessed with women. An obsession with women is rather healthy in us heterosexuals, but the suggestion was that the Bill was concerned only with the rights of women, not those of men. I am trying to be helpful by clarifying the Bill's provisions and the legislation underpinning them. When I refer to a woman, I also mean a man. I hope that that does not upset you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—you appear to be more than usually perturbed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All that might be upsetting me is whether the right hon. Gentleman is straying from the exact terms of the amendment into something that is more akin to Second Reading, but I am sure that he has no intention of doing so any longer.

Eric Forth: Certainly not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, we are talking about the Sex Discrimination Act, and I should have thought that a bit of chat about sex was entirely in order.

Greg Knight: So that I am not accused of anything, I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. Will my right hon. Friend address a point that gives me cause for concern? As I understand it, the reference in proposed new section 29B(c) to actions that subject women "to any other detriment" could cover a case where a ladies lavatory is on the first floor and the gents is on the ground floor. The club would then be obliged to construct a new set of lavatories on the ground floor. Would that be considered unreasonable under my right hon. Friend's amendment? He does not make clear in his amendment precisely the scope of the word "unreasonable". I hope that he will deal with that important issue. What does he mean by "unreasonable" in the amendment? Does he envisage certain capital works being necessary or none at all?

Eric Forth: My right hon. Friend has me at a disadvantage. He is a distinguished and experienced lawyer, which I am not. I worry quite a lot when a lawyer of his distinction taxes me on the interpretation of the word "reasonable", but I have been in the House long enough to know, or think I know, that the word "reasonable" is a term of art in the British legal system—is it not? I am even more worried when I cast my eyes back and see that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who is as eminent a lawyer, is sitting beside my right hon. Friend, so I have two eminent legal brains sitting behind me. I should have thought that if my right hon. Friend cannot answer his own question, there is little chance of my being able to answer it.

Greg Knight: I can see a difficulty in interpretation. Clearly, if a club has several thousand members, carrying out small capital works may not be unreasonable when one looks at the club's accounts, but if a club is very small and because of the passage of the Bill into law it has to carry out capital works, in the light of that club's turnover the very same works may be deemed to be unreasonable. I want to flush out from my right hon. Friend where he sees his amendment playing in all that, if it is accepted by the House.

Eric Forth: I assume that when my right hon. Friend uses the term "flush out", he is referring to the particular alterations to the building to which he previously referred.
	I thought that the wording of my amendment was somewhat clearer than my right hon. Friend suggests. When I refer to
	"unreasonable works or alterations to be carried out on existing buildings",
	I am not speaking about scheduled works or works that would otherwise be done. I am referring explicitly, in the context of the Bill, to the kind of works that would be forced on the organisations or associations by the terms of the Bill, unless it is amended by my amendment.

David Wright: The Bill relates to private members clubs that currently offer membership to both sexes but discriminate against women in their practices. That would mean that all those clubs would already have facilities for women to use, such as changing facilities or toilet facilities. If any changes were required to deal with women or men who had disabilities, those would be covered by the disability discrimination legislation. The clubs would have to make the necessary changes anyway, following action by the House. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that?

Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman obviously knows what his own Bill means. I can only go by what is stated on the face of it. I am seeking to amend it and the fact that the amendment has been selected suggests that it has relevance. We have not even come on to guests yet, and I have not got on to my thoughts on whether his Bill might force a lot of clubs to go back from being open to both sexes to being single-sex clubs.

Greg Knight: I think the intervention that my right hon. Friend has just made is legally incorrect. The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) is legally incorrect in his remarks. My understanding is that a private club does not have to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 unless it admits members of the public, so a private members club open only for the benefit of its members is exempt from the Disability Discrimination Act, but, for example, if that club hires out a room for a wedding on a Saturday, it would have to comply for that particular day with that particular Act. The premise of the intervention was wrong.
	I was seeking to draw to my right hon. Friend's attention—I hope he will address the issue—not the lack of provision for, let us say, ladies lavatories, but the fact that under proposed section 29B there is a reference to
	"subjecting to any other detriment",
	so if the lavatories for one sex were up a flight of stairs, the club might be forced to put both sexes' lavatories on the same floor, which seems to me way over the top.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I seek to bring a sense of proportionality to the debate? Interventions appear to be longer than the speech that is being made.

Eric Forth: I will seek to lengthen my speech to get back the proportions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if that is your wish. It is not often that I have been encouraged from the Chair to do that, but I am more than happy to do so on this occasion. Let us get back to the text to find out whether that helps us to keep our bearings.
	We are talking about a woman—or a man—when she or he is a guest and about the facilities or services afforded to guests. Of course that is where we get into the likelihood that is referred to in my amendment of the need to carry out works and alterations to buildings. Given the breadth of the definition, it is surely self-evident that benefits, facilities or services can cover a huge variety of different circumstances in the context of clubs. That must be the case at a large number of premises. I suppose that the facilities can range all the way from the obvious—toilets—which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) has mentioned already, to changing rooms and, no doubt, all sorts of other facilities as well. As was highlighted by the Royal and Ancient golf club, although the same thing is in the minds of many people, the problem is the likelihood that, if the Bill were ever to reach the statute book, bite and start to affect clubs in the way in which it is presumably intended, expenditure would be inevitably forced on those clubs.

Gerald Howarth: My right hon. Friend refers in his amendment to unreasonable costs that might be attributable to a club in undertaking material alterations to the structure. I put it to him that the use of the word "unreasonable" could subject those clubs to an endless barrage of litigation to determine that which is reasonable and that which is not reasonable. In the circumstances, instead of using the word "unreasonable" and bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) said about some of those clubs having small numbers of people, might it be preferable to put a monetary figure on such things, rather than leaving them open to the lawyers to decide?

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because that could well be a very useful further amendment to seek to make to the Bill. I think that I am right in saying that, procedurally, as we are sadly about to run out of time, there happily will be plenty of time to table further amendments to the Bill for consideration on the subsequent occasion on which it is debated in the House. My hon. Friend has just come up with a very helpful suggestion to which we could return if my amendment, after due deliberation and perhaps even a Division, proves not to be to the satisfaction of the House.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend's amendment refers not to unreasonable costs, but to unreasonable works. The cost of the work may be only one of the grounds on which the work is unreasonable.

Eric Forth: Ah! Again I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which gives me another thought: a planning dimension could come into play and a conflict could therefore arise. If the Bill became a statute and it were thought that it required alterations of a kind for which planning permission could not be obtained, there would appear to be a conflict between the Bill's requirements and planning law.

Peter Bottomley: Has it struck my right hon. Friend as odd that restaurants, village halls and other places do not face such problems?

Eric Forth: I find many things odd in both the law and life in general, but I can only deal with the Bill as it is before us. Again, if my hon. Friend thinks that further amendments would be helpful, he will happily have the opportunity to table them for debate when the Bill is further considered.

David Wright: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the R and A had contacted him about the Bill. Has he had any contact from the CIU, which is offering wholehearted support for the Bill? I think that the CIU would find the amendment rather strange.

Eric Forth: Yes, I have indeed. The hon. Gentleman is correct: the CIU has indicated that it is content with the Bill.

Gerald Howarth: For the elucidation of the House, will my right hon. Friend tell me what CIU means?

Eric Forth: The CIU is the Club and Institute Union, which is a very august and eminent body that represents what, in the good old days, used to be known as working men's clubs. They are probably now known as lifestyle clubs—I should not be surprised—or work persons' clubs, more probably, given their current attitudes—
	It being half-past Two o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the debate without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 15 October.

Remaining Private Members' Bills
	 — 
	CONSTITUTION FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION (REFERENDUM) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 April], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 16 July.

LOCAL LAND CHARGES (FEES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 15 October.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 (MAKING OF REMEDIAL ORDERS) AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 16 July.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 15 October.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS (NEED AND SAFETY TESTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 16 July.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (JUSTIFIABLE CONDUCT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [14 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 16 July.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 16 July.

CLINICAL SERVICES REVIEW (SOUTH WEST LONDON HEALTH AUTHORITY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]

Tom Brake: I am pleased to have secured the debate in the pre-consultation period of the "Better Healthcare Closer to Home" project, which is otherwise known as the clinical services review or strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall leave him some of my time to raise other points with the Minister.
	I had friendly discussions with the Minister's spy at yesterday's seminar and I understand that the spy has been in touch with him and that he has been fully briefed. I therefore hope that he can respond to the points that I shall make.
	First, I support the concept of the strategy, which is that there should be a critical care hospital and several local care hospitals. Yesterday's meeting was well attended by representatives from many health organisations, patient groups and so on. There was support for the initiative at the meeting. People asked for more information but they also wanted to make progress. A problem with such projects is that the time scales are inevitably long because of the need for consultation, reforms, the building process and so on. If steps are not taken, there is a risk that the project will die an unceremonious death when some new initiative supplants or replaces the current one. People want progress to be made.
	St. Helier hospital and Sutton hospital clearly need to be rebuilt. Anyone who has visited those hospitals will know from the state of the structures that they require urgent attention. I understand that parts of St. Helier hospital are off-limits to patients because of health and safety concerns. Measures such as the working time directive make the need for the development of such concepts even stronger, and the proposed changes would probably happen in any case.
	Whatever configuration is arrived at for the local care hospitals and critical care hospital, the highest priority must be to ensure the best quality of patient care. It is also important that the critical care hospital should be as close to the centre of the area that the trust serves as possible, with that centre adjusted to take into account the health profile of the catchment area. St. Helier is an area of my constituency, and of the London boroughs of Sutton and Merton, that has significant health needs to be addressed.
	Accessibility and employment considerations will also be factors in determining where the critical care and local care hospitals will be located. St. Helier, which crosses the London boroughs of Sutton and Merton, is one of the areas with the highest level of deprivation in those two boroughs, so the employment impacts will be significant. Accessibility for a population many of whom do not have access to their own transport will also be important. One measure that could significantly improve the accessibility of St. Helier hospital, which is already good, would be the extension of the Croydon tram to Sutton. If the Minister is a good friend of Ken Livingstone, perhaps he will have a word with him about bringing that tram to Sutton. We would certainly welcome that. The location of the hospital will of course be dependent on other factors such as the availability of land and planning considerations, but taking all those criteria into account, the St. Helier site is likely to be the most appropriate for the development of a critical care hospital.
	I should point out that although I think that the development of such a hospital would be welcome in the area, some residents who live on the proposed new hospital site would be affected quite significantly by it and might have some objections. I intend during the next few days to write to the residents who would be most closely affected to ask them for their views and to bring to their attention the fact that although there is nothing concrete about the plans yet, there are proposals of which they should be aware.
	If the St. Helier site is developed, because the proposed land is metropolitan open land the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will have to approve the change, although I understand that there is likely to be compensation in terms of metropolitan open land being provided at another location close by, which might address that issue.
	Another site, the Sutton site, is also being considered, as is the Epsom site. There is an issue specifically in respect of the Sutton site on which I hope the Minister will respond. The site is close to the Royal Marsden hospital, which has, as the Minister will know, recently secured foundation status. If the Sutton site were to be developed, I have no reason to believe that the Royal Marsden, were it approached and asked to contribute some of its land, would refuse such an approach. In fact, I understand that some positive discussions are under way. However, I pose a hypothetical question to the Minister. If such a trust or foundation hospital anywhere in the country were approached and asked to participate in a project that the community felt was in the best interests of the local health community, and that foundation hospital decided that it did not want to take part, would the Minister have the power to direct that foundation hospital, and would he use that power if he had it? I hope that he will be able to respond on that point.
	Another point on which I hope the Minister will respond is the proposal that some have mooted that if the St. Helier site, for example, were developed, the Epsom site would declare UDI and go its own way. Has the Minister had a chance to consider that suggestion? What does he think of its viability?
	I have a couple of points on the consultation process. The formal consultation will run from 1 September to 30 November, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and I intend to hold a large public meeting in September to hear people's views on the proposals. For the consultation process to be meaningful, options setting out the probable or likeliest location of both the local and critical care hospitals will have to be provided. It must be seen as a package. Given that the range of possible locations for the critical care hospital is limited, it should be possible to identify the probable locations of local care hospitals at the same time. We will need to know what the range of services provided by those hospitals will be, too.
	Consultation with patients and future patients will have to be extensive, because the existing forums, which were put in place after the abolition of community health councils, are in their infancy. Consultation will have to encompass not just the people who were present at yesterday's meeting but those who have traditionally been excluded such as black and ethnic minorities, the unemployed, single parents and so on—it must go beyond the usual suspects. Does the Minister believe that the effectiveness of the forums would be enhanced by allowing them to sit as observers on the programme board for the clinical services strategy? I understand that they currently do not have observer status.
	The battle over community health councils was lost, but their replacement is in many ways much more complex and underfunded. Does the Minister agree that the original indication was that patient forums would have about 15 volunteer representatives, but that the number has been reduced to 10? Will he explain why? I have been told that that is to save on their expenses, which, incidentally, are lower than those of staff, which I do not quite understand. Will he assure us that the Secretary of State's recently announced cull of quangos will boost the funds that will go to local forums?
	Is the Minister aware of a letter that was sent from the collective forums of the south-west London strategic health authority to the chief executive of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, in which Barbara Price expresses concern that owing to a lack of information that the forums and forum support organisations receive from the commission, they are struggling with some of the essential administrative and financial aspects of this role? They are concerned that no timetable has been set in which their concerns will be addressed. I hope that he will pick up on that point.
	To return to the specifics of the "Better Healthcare Closer to Home" initiative, and to conclude to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam an opportunity to speak, it is important that residents who remember the breach of trust that occurred when a previous NHS trust failed to provide a separate children's hospital on the St. Helier site are reassured that the total package will be delivered. They will also need assurances that the reorganisation will not affect existing services and will not exacerbate problems that still exist between the Epsom and St. Helier hospitals, which have not been addressed since their merger a number of years ago.
	Mental health issues must be brought to centre stage because they are currently on the periphery, and I welcome the fact that the programme board has agreed that it will present a paper covering the subject. The impact on other trusts needs to be properly quantified and assumptions about how many patients will choose to travel to an alternative hospital will need to be verified against actual changes experienced elsewhere in the country. Nothing will progress without funding, and I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurances on that.
	"Better Healthcare Closer to Home" should be good news for patients. It should improve outcomes and make health care more accessible. I hope that the Minister's response will make it clear that the Government will give their backing to these plans. Without the Government's financial support, "Better Healthcare Closer to Home" will be nothing more than a pipedream.

Paul Burstow: I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to take part in this debate and for his initiative in securing it. It is timely to have the opportunity to discuss this matter, not least because the organisation of health services in the London borough of Sutton and beyond has been an issue of long standing. Over almost the past 10 years, there has been a series of attempts by the Epsom and St. Helier NHS trust to come forward with a set of plans that held together and would be viable. Yet we are still waiting, with out-of-date building stock. We are still waiting, in particular, for St. Helier hospital—which is almost ancient—to be replaced. One conclusion that I drew from yesterday's event in Addington is that it is almost universally accepted that, whatever happens, St. Helier needs to be rebuilt to be fit for the 21st century, whether it is a critical care or a local care hospital.
	I want to emphasise several points made by my hon. Friend. One thing that emerged from yesterday's debate in Addington was concern about the lack of clarity so far in the process of deciding what local care hospitals are to be. If the new model of care proposed in the local clinical services strategy is to be realised, and people are to buy into it through the area covered by Epsom and St. Helier trust, it is important for us to know how many sites there will be, where they will be, and precisely what services will be provided by the local care hospitals.
	The Minister will probably empathise with one point raised yesterday. So far, the opportunity to include social care in the services provided by local care hospitals has been missed. There is an immense need to co-locate and integrate social care, and I hope the Minister will ensure that the opportunity is not lost in Sutton and Cheam or in Carshalton and Wallington.
	As a result of the lack of clarity over local care hospitals, the focus has tended to be on the critical care hospital and where it will be. It is not surprising that Members of Parliament and others have fierce loyalties to their existing hospitals, as do our communities. My hon. Friend has already outlined some of the concerns that he and I share with the London borough of Sutton. The local authority feels that the new critical care hospital must be at least as accessible as St. Helier. I would go further, and say that the St. Helier site seems to offer the best fit strategically for a new critical care hospital.
	I want to raise two or three issues about consultation. As has been pointed out yesterday and today, we should ask whether a two-site solution is viable. People will want to know, and will want to see demonstrated in the formal consultation, that the two-site option has been properly evaluated. If it is not viable, it should be shown why. If that does not happen, it will inevitably fuel the view of those who think that this is an exercise to get rid of the hospital and have just one acute hospital in the area.
	Another question that needs to be addressed in the formal consultation is my hon. Friend's point about UDI. I do not think that it is as much a question of UDI as a question of whether there is merit in exploring the case for an amicable divorce between Epsom and St. Helier hospitals and the recreation of the pre-existing trusts. That is certainly a live issue in Epsom.
	One of the things that puzzled me most about the criteria so far for evaluating the various site options was the low weighting given to health equality and equity of access. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the Government take health inequality seriously when it comes to the reconfiguration of services.
	At this point in the life of the project, the capital costs have been estimated at anything between £215 million and £228 million. Other Members with an interest in the project have rightly asked whether that will be deemed affordable. It would be helpful to know whether people are wasting their time with this enterprise, or whether the Government feel that the public purse can afford it. I hope that the Minister will also be able to consider my hon. Friend's points about foundation trusts.
	The consultation must not be just for the vocal and articulate few. It must strive to reach the hard-to-reach groups, the vulnerable and those who do not have a voice; otherwise, it will risk letting the community down and not providing health care closer to home that will meet the needs of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend mentioned that we plan to hold consultation events of our own during the formal consultation stage. Given our desire to ensure that the hard-to-reach groups are reached, we shall want to hold more than one meeting, and we hope that the NHS will co-operate with us to ensure that factual information is provided to our constituents during the process.

Stephen Ladyman: This is an important subject and I suspect that, as the consultation proceeds, we shall not have heard the last of it in the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) for his contribution. They both made important points about the way in which the consultation should proceed and the need to focus on evening out health inequalities. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam made the particularly important point that the consultation should involve not just the loud mouthed and the pushy—it also needs to reach those whose voices are not normally heard.
	I would like to begin by paying a brief tribute to all the NHS and social care staff in the South West London strategic health authority area. They are hardworking, dedicated and committed to the improvement of the local NHS and local services. Let me start my response to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington by acknowledging the pressures on the NHS, not only in his constituency but throughout the country. A consequence of that is that we must increase capacity, which is why the Government are investing so heavily in doctors, nurses, technicians and new equipment. We must also work to raise clinical standards generally. In other words, it will not be good enough for us to keep doing more of the same; we have to take a radical review of how services are provided.
	The NHS plan sets out a challenging 10-year programme for that reform. Far-reaching changes are often necessary to try to provide the best possible services for patients, and we must ensure that those services are accessible, flexible and designed around the needs of patients. However, we cannot do that from Whitehall. It is no good pretending that I know best what is right for the hon. Gentleman's constituency when I neither live there nor access health services there.
	It is our policy to shift decision making to local areas. That is why we started the "Shifting the balance of power" initiative and why we now devolve funding decisions to the front line. It is now for the primary care trusts, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services. They are in the best position to do that because of their specialist knowledge of the local community.
	As part of the modernisation programme, many NHS economies and organisations are using this freedom and responsibility to consider, with their local stakeholders, changes to the way in which they organise their services. They recognise that services cannot be static, and that they must change to reflect changing circumstances and to respond to local needs. In carrying out such reviews, they must take account of a number of different pressures on the local service, including changing medical practice, training-related issues, the working time directive, population distribution and travel times. The hon. Gentleman mentioned all those issues. They have an additional responsibility to live within their means. These issues and many others have to be taken into consideration. Of course, biggest is not always best. Local decision makers need to recognise that patients want more, not fewer, local services. However, that pressure has to be balanced with the need to ensure clinical safety and to develop excellence.
	That brings me to the situation in south-west London. In terms of health care in the Sutton, Merton and mid-Surrey area, local stakeholders have looked at the local position and a general consensus has developed locally that the status quo cannot remain. The fabric of the estate at St. Helier hospital is poor, with problems of a lack of privacy and dignity on the wards, and of few toilets and bathrooms. The Epsom hospital is small and some of its building fabric is also poor.
	There are challenges associated with recruiting clinical specialists to deliver services over split sites, and with supervising and training doctors. Sub-specialisation is difficult in the present circumstances and it is also proving difficult to create and sustain viable clinical rotas. There is also a duplication of services across the sites and the problems at each site are likely to worsen with time.
	There is local recognition that things must change and that there needs to be a locally developed proposal with which to move forward. That proposal—I stress again that it is a local proposal, not one imposed from Whitehall—is to create several community hospitals, referred to in the proposals as local care hospitals, supported by one acute hospital, which is referred to in the proposals as the critical care hospital. This concept has received widespread local support from both consultants and GPs, and there is agreement on the model. There is also general consensus on the way forward that the model represents. It aims to separate the planned and emergency care processes and to redesign services around the patient.
	The proposed strategy challenges the notion of what an emergency hospital should really be doing, while seeking to devolve the planned aspects of traditional hospital activity, so that they can be delivered closer to the patient's home. Those services will then be brought together with primary care services to challenge the traditional configurations within GP and health centres. The point that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam made about the need to involve social care in those activities is an important one, and he is right to press it.
	The function of a local care hospital will be to offer more clinical services than can traditionally be offered in a GP surgery. They will include health surveillance and screening; elective work, such as day-surgery; the majority of high-volume, low-complexity out-patient appointments; some in-patient beds and intermediate care; minor injury and illness units; and diagnostic services such as X-ray.
	The critical care hospital will deal with all emergency work, complex elective work and low-volume, high-complexity and multi-speciality out-patient work, supported by relevant diagnostics services. The advantages of placing these acute services in one critical care hospital include meeting national standards for clinical services; meeting national employment and training standards; providing capacity for planned growth in the number of patients needing services; providing flexibility for future needs; integrating clinical specialties in order to provide better care and to use scarce resources to best effect; and providing a better environment to help patients' recovery and staff recruitment and retention rates.
	This new model of care will realise the ambitions of "Keeping the NHS local". It will also mean that the constituents of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will benefit from better, more modern health care services, delivered in a better and more appropriate environment that is closer to their homes. The proposals will also give the local health service the opportunity to improve the standard of the environment in which hospital services are delivered—for example, by providing more single rooms. They will also create an opportunity to rationalise NHS land holdings locally and, potentially, to release land for key worker housing.
	It is important that I point out, however, that while consensus has been developed over the model of service, no decisions have been taken on the site of the critical care hospital or of the local care hospitals. As the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington and for Sutton and Cheam have rightly pointed out, the decisions on the siting of the local care hospitals and of the critical care hospital are of equal importance.

Paul Burstow: The vision is widely supported, but both parts—the local care hospitals and the critical care hospital—have to be delivered to achieve it. If one part is not delivered, the whole thing will fall apart. Can we afford this package, and will it actually be delivered?

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to give a blanket promise of funding for the new project in the middle of an Adjournment debate. What I can say is that we will work very closely with the local decision makers to ensure that they have appropriate guidance on what may or may not be feasible.
	The siting decisions to which I referred must be made locally and not by Ministers. Formal public local consultation on the siting of the hospitals will take place during this September, October and November.
	I understand that, so far, formulation of the proposals has been a very inclusive process. GPs, hospital doctors, nurses and other health professionals from the trust and from the two local PCTs—Sutton and Merton, and East Elmbridge and Mid Surrey—have been working together intensively throughout 2003–04, together with patient and public representatives and groups, to develop this new model for local health care. I will ensure that careful note is taken of the comments that were made concerning those groups that may not have been properly involved in the process. Informal discussions have been held with tenants and resident groups, with local authority overview and scrutiny committees and with the media and NHS staff. I understand that the process throughout has been carried out in an open and transparent manner. For example, detailed working papers have been made public—in March 2004 and again last week. Comments from stakeholders on the papers published last week have been invited by 7 July 2004.
	I am also aware of yesterday's full-day meeting in which stakeholders received presentations and were able to ask questions. I was pleased to learn that it was a well attended event and that a number of hon. Members were present and able to participate with others in understanding the issues, debating the key points and identifying where further analysis is required. I am told that the day highlighted a high level of commitment to the model of care and that the key stakeholders debated the importance of delivering the elements of the reconfiguration in an integrated way. I hope that the event will have made a significant contribution to defining the further work to be completed before the formal consultation period.
	It is always important that the local NHS strives to engage in a meaningful way with its local community as well as with all interested stakeholders. It is encouraging, then, to see that the NHS in south-west London is seeking to work in a different and more open way in the development of ideas and options—

Tom Brake: In the time available, will the Minister touch on the issue of foundation hospitals and clarify whether he will direct?

Stephen Ladyman: The position with foundation hospitals is that they have a duty of partnership. The Secretary of State is not in a position to give directions in quite the way that the hon. Gentleman has requested, but I can assure him that the duty is there for foundation hospitals to be involved in a partnership. An independent regulator will take a view on whether that duty is being fulfilled or not. Perhaps the solution to the problem will not be brought about in the way that the hon. Gentleman has requested, but I can assure him that I am satisfied that steps can be taken to ensure an appropriate resolution of the problem—
	The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at two minutes past Three o'clock.